5 ms·

I'm also a chem -> programming convert. The explosions I didn't mind; it was the impossibly long production cycles that got me. After a year of work, I shelved

I'm also a chem -> programming convert. The explosions I didn't mind; it was the impossibly long production cycles that got me. After a year of work, I shelved a whole book of research notes with not so much as a mention. These days, when I'm ready to move on, I push to Github and try something new.

ghshephard 12y ago
"it was the impossibly long production cycles that got me. After a year of work, I shelved a whole book of research notes with not so much as a mention. " It's funny that I have zero difficulty understanding you when you say you, "push to Github and try something new" - but I'm trying to grok what you mean when you say, "long production cycles that got to me" and "shelved a whole book of research notes with no so much as a mention" - What was happening when you were working in Chemistry?
- clebio 12y ago
  No idea why the downvotes, I don't think they're warranted. This seems an honest question. IANAC (chemist), but could guess at the answer -- imaging trying to assemble the physical apparatus in that article: it might take weeks or months (Onnes had a battery of assistants helping him...) just to get the hardware in place, let alone orchestrate the cascade of liquids and gases that eventually produces a tiny vial of the objective. It would be something akin to building AWS from Arduinos, step-by-step, say.
  - ghshephard 12y ago
    When I read "long production cycles" - I was wondering if the OP was talking about the time that the chemical reactions took, or whether they were talking about how long it takes to write up research results - without getting any formal acknowledgment (such as in a published paper in a journal) of your results.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- joshcanhelp 12y ago
  Sorry for the delayed response. The molecules I was making took up to a week to build. All-day and overnight reactions made me impatient. I'd spend a day researching the procedure, then a day setting up and getting the reaction started. I'd come in the next morning and might have sludge or nothing or what I wanted. Then I'd wait a few days to have access to the equipment I needed for analysis and, most of the time, would have to start over. One week of work and nothing to show. After a year of this, my research advisor kind of shrugged his shoulders and said "well, this isn't really going anywhere" and switched me over to help a grad student that was there. The lab notebook went on the shelf and they're probably still sitting there collection dust. No publications, no discoveries, no record of me even being there except the credits on my transcript. I got the sense that this was just par for the course and, working in the industry for a couple of years, that looked to be the case. Work as hard as you can, paying attention to every tiny detail, and if you get nowhere ... oh well, move on. Some people seemed perfectly fine with this cycle. Me? It drove me insane ... and out of chemistry!

ghshephard 12y ago

"it was the impossibly long production cycles that got me. After a year of work, I shelved a whole book of research notes with not so much as a mention. " It's funny that I have zero difficulty understanding you when you say you, "push to Github and try something new" - but I'm trying to grok what you mean when you say, "long production cycles that got to me" and "shelved a whole book of research notes with no so much as a mention" - What was happening when you were working in Chemistry?

clebio 12y ago
No idea why the downvotes, I don't think they're warranted. This seems an honest question. IANAC (chemist), but could guess at the answer -- imaging trying to assemble the physical apparatus in that article: it might take weeks or months (Onnes had a battery of assistants helping him...) just to get the hardware in place, let alone orchestrate the cascade of liquids and gases that eventually produces a tiny vial of the objective. It would be something akin to building AWS from Arduinos, step-by-step, say.
- ghshephard 12y ago
  When I read "long production cycles" - I was wondering if the OP was talking about the time that the chemical reactions took, or whether they were talking about how long it takes to write up research results - without getting any formal acknowledgment (such as in a published paper in a journal) of your results.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
joshcanhelp 12y ago
Sorry for the delayed response. The molecules I was making took up to a week to build. All-day and overnight reactions made me impatient. I'd spend a day researching the procedure, then a day setting up and getting the reaction started. I'd come in the next morning and might have sludge or nothing or what I wanted. Then I'd wait a few days to have access to the equipment I needed for analysis and, most of the time, would have to start over. One week of work and nothing to show. After a year of this, my research advisor kind of shrugged his shoulders and said "well, this isn't really going anywhere" and switched me over to help a grad student that was there. The lab notebook went on the shelf and they're probably still sitting there collection dust. No publications, no discoveries, no record of me even being there except the credits on my transcript. I got the sense that this was just par for the course and, working in the industry for a couple of years, that looked to be the case. Work as hard as you can, paying attention to every tiny detail, and if you get nowhere ... oh well, move on. Some people seemed perfectly fine with this cycle. Me? It drove me insane ... and out of chemistry!