Category Archives: Chemical Industry

Crazy Time

Work has been a seamless stretch of insane activity 24/7. An extended manic episode of multi-tasking and over-commitment. Nervously, we juggle chainsaws and flaming bowling balls on deck while the bow submarines into the swells. The gales of fortune tear at the spinnaker as every square foot of canvas strains to pull the ship forward.

Coworkers are mind-numb to the incessant demands of a production schedule that is absolutely fault intolerant. I’ve been on a boat in a storm for a bakers dozen of years. Rogue waves have become the norm. Reach and grasp become disconnected as you struggle to stay on the heaving deck. Yet the captain in the wheelhouse steers the steel boat into the storm again, hoping to drop the net for one more trawl.  We lash ourselves to the mast and hope for the best.

iChallenge

Here is an iChallenge for the iPeople who are developing the telecommunications wonders we have today. You designers of the Kindle, Nook, iPhone, iPad, iWidget, and all of the variants spreading away from the core technology. I know you are clever and hard working people. There is no doubt.

What about developing or just relocating manufacturing processes that can be run in the USA? Shouldn’t the fabrication technology be lined out and automated to the point where it can be operated nearly anywhere? One of the things that the advance of technology brings is reduced headcount per unit of production.  How do we justify off-shoring manufacturing that is highly automated? What is the advantage if inexpensive labor is not needed? It must be something else.

If taxes are the issue, then let’s look at the numbers. Quit the handwaving. We need a company like Apple to pony up some actual numbers. Make your case like you did in B-school. Manufacturing doesn’t have to start up in the expensive SF Bay area. Plants can be built anywhere the public infrastructure already supplies utilities and transportation.  Could it be that many of the arguments for off-shore manufacturing are related to a deficit in imagination rather than rigorous calculation?

And to the iConsumers out there. By demanding these wonderphones, you are only making the trade deficit worse.  Public corporations are people, or so the thinking goes. What is with these people? Do they not have any sense of loyalty? Are they even trying to manufacture in the USA anymore?

 

Whither Helium?

A friend from western Pennsylvania was showing me photos from a recent trip to his native land. He was stunned at the extent to which natural gas infrastructure was creeping into the countryside.  Former neighbors and distant cash poor/land rich family members were cashing in the family sod for piles of lucre offered by the gas barons.  All aboard the good ship Marcellus. And if you missed that boat, the USS Utica is right behind it.

So,some of the eastern states are full of gas? It makes one wonder if the gas holds much helium?  Helium is very important as most readers of this blog will know. Helium’s low boiling point makes for a useful low temperature thermostat bath for superconductors. Helium sits within nested Dewars in NMR cryostats, quietly bubbling into the atmosphere, where it begins its random walk to the cold vacuum of space.  In exchange for tipping protons in the rotating frame, we send helium atoms back into the cosmos.

Helium supplies were interrupted recently with the maintenance shutdown of a plant in Wyoming.  This square western state also blows gas. Tremendous amounts of it. The sweetening process for all of this gas produces massive amounts of sulfur byproduct. 

It is not uncommon for Th’ Gaussling to sit at the rail intersection in his Colorado town and count rail cars clacking south in the dark of night, all full of molten sulfur from that other square state.  I have counted as many as 85 cars in one train all stencilled with “Molten Sulfur”.  All headed to, I presume, somewhere near the Gulf coast for, perhaps, sulfuric acid production.

I think we users of helium need to be a bit more vocal, or more curious at least, about the strategic reserves of helium. A lot of technology and sevices rely on it.  Has anyone looked at the Marcellus and Utica reserves for helium??

Mass Transfer Hijinks

Wow. Got a big reminder of some principles of  mass transfer the other day.  Kettle reactors have big limitations if your material won’t mix.  Even if your reaction is approximately diffusion limited, it is possible for things to go haywire if you can’t get it to move. A fellow knows this, but when confronted with it the magnitude seems greater than expected. There must be an exponent in the equation. Scheisse.

Eat Venter’s Dust

I gave a talk in a morning I&EC session last thursday at the Denver ACS National meeting. During an interlude provided by a no-show speaker, a member of the audience began to quiz down a hapless speaker who earlier presented on the filtration of plasmids. The gentleman’s concern was this- We are continuing to develop conventional processing technology while fellows like Craig Venter are devising step-change techniques for genomic analysis and synthesis. People like Venter have their names mentioned in the same sentence with “synthetic biology”.  Why do we bother with the more primitive methods of research when the real action is with folks like Venter?

The inquisitive fellow was asking a rhetorical question to all of us. But the point he skipped over was the matter of intellectual property. He kept asking why don’t “we” just switch the paradigm right now and use such technology? Why continue with highly manual R&D?  The problem with his question was in the assumption that Venter’s technology was something that “WE” have access to. Venter’s technology does not automatically translate into a community tool. It is more like an item of commerce. In reality, this will likely represent a major uptick in productivity to the financial benefit of the intellectual property owners and licensees and their stockholders.

How the scientific workforce will fare is a different matter. Increased productivity usually means reduced labor per unit of output. I suspect that Venter’s technology represents a higher entry barrier to those who want to be in the market.  It may be that the outcome will be a broader range of diagnostic and treatment services available to a shrinking pool of insured people able to afford it.

Is this as good as it gets?

I’ve had this notion (a conceit, really) that as someone from industry, I should reach out to my colleagues in academia in order to bring some awareness of how chemistry is conducted out in the world.  After many, many conversations, an accumulating pile of work in ACS activities, and a few visits to schools, what I’ve found is not what I expected. I expected a bit more curiosity about how commerce works and perhaps what life is like in a chemical plant. I really thought that my academic associates might be intrigued by the wonders of the global chemical manufacturing complex and product process development.

What I’m finding is more along the lines of polite disinterest. I’ve sensed this all along, but I’d been trying to sustain the hope that if only I could use the right words, I might elicit some interest in how manufacturing works; that I could strike some kind of spark.  But what I’ve found is just how insular the magisterium of academia really is. The walls of the fortress are very thick. We have our curricula firmly in place on the three pillars of chemstry- theory, synthesis, and analysis. In truth, textbooks often set the structure of courses.  A four year ACS certified curriculum cannot spare any room for alternative models like applied science. I certainly cannot begrudge folks for structuring around that reality.

It could easily be argued that the other magisteria of industry and government are the same way.  Well, except for one niggling detail. Academia supplies educated people to the other great domains comprising society.  We seem to be left with the standard academic image of what a chemical scientist should look like going deeply into the next 50 years. Professors are scholars and they produce what they best understand- more scholars in their own image.  This is only natural. I’ve done a bit of it myself.

Here is my sweeping claim (imagine the air overhead roiled with waving hands)-  on a numbers basis, most chemists aren’t that interested in synthesis as they come out of a BA/BS program. That is my conclusion based on interviewing fresh graduates. I’ve interviewed BA/BS chemists who have had undergraduate research experience in nanomaterials and AFM, but could not draw a reaction showing the formation of ethyl acetate.  As a former organic prof, I find that particularly alarming. This is one of the main keepsakes from a year of sophomore organic chemistry.  The good news is that the errant graduate can usually be coached into remembering the chemistry.

To a large extent, industry is concerned with making stuff.  So perhaps it is only natural that most academic chemists (in my sample set) aren’t that keen on anything greater than a superficial view of the manufacturing world. I understand this and acknowledge reality. But it is a shame that institutional inertia is so large in magnitude in this and all endeavors.  Chemical industry really needs young innovators who are willing to start up manufacturing in North America. We could screen such folks and steer them to MIT, but that is lame. Why let MIT have all the fun and the royalties?  We need startups with cutting edge technology, but we also need companies who are able to make fine chemical items of commerce. Have you tried to find a brominator in the USA lately?

The gap between academia and industry is mainly cultural. But it is a big gap, it may not be surmountable, and I’m not sure that the parties want to mix. I’ll keep trying.

ACS Denver Last Day

I’ve spent much of my time at the Denver meeting talking to vendors in the exposition.  There were some very good pieces of equipment at the show. One company had a GC the size of a sub sandwhich.  Pretty cool. It’s for on-site work and actually comes in Army green and camo. I wish I could remember the name.

The Agilent ICP/MS is truly amazing.  Sub part per trillion capability.  The system uses something called the “helium collision mode” to exclude polyatomic cations from the mass analyzer.  You know those pesky argon chloride cations from sample plasma, right?  The argon polyatomic cations can mimic heavier elements by virtue of their combined atomic mass.  The instrument has an octapole chamber with helium in it that serves to impede the larger polyatomic cations. Clever monkeys.

 

Bleaches and in-process checks of the enlightenment

In his 1736 publication Smegmatalogia, or the Art of Making Potashes and Soap, and Bleaching of Linens, James Dunbar describes a process for the preparation of potash.  The intended user of the process was the common Scottish farmer. Dunbar was anxious to imbue the common Scot with the ability to “bleach” his own linens.  It is important to realize that the meaning of the word bleach in the early 18th century is different from contemporary use.  The modern use comprises notions of decolorization through oxidation of color bodies to produce a white appearance.  The 18th century concept involves the apparent cleansing and subsequent lightening of a fabric.

The book begins by detailing the preparation of a solution or extract from ashes called Lee.  To obtain this solution, the “Country-Man” would carefully collect Scottish vegetables such as the wood of oak, ash, beech, “thorns”, juniper trees, and “whins”. Suitable herbs included fern, breckens (or brackens), wormwood, thistles, stinking weed, and hemlock. 

Dunbar is careful to instruct that the vegetation should be burned in the shelter of a house but in such a way as to avoid burning down the house. The purpose of burning the vegatation in a shelter is to avoid having rainwater come into contact with the ashes.  My interpretation of this is that runoff carries away soluble potash.

The ashes are placed in a container and covered with water. The ashes are soaked in water until such time that the Lee “carries an egg on its surface”.  What Dunbar is telling us is that the extraction of the ashes needs to go until the worker obtains in the solution a particular specific gravity- this is a specification. There is some minimum specific gravity of the Lee that will float an egg.  And the higher the specific gravity, the more volume of the egg rises from surface of the Lee. The specification herein is required for the next operation.  In order to carry out a successful saponification of tallow, the Lee solution must be sufficiently concentrated. 

Dunbar then describes steps where the Lee is combined with the ashes of ash, beech, or fern followed by boiling the water off to afford “thickens of pottage“.  The residue is shaped into balls which are then calcined in a fire to afford a substance that may be stored in a dry container for the purpose of making soap. 

The discovery of chlorine in 1774 by Scheele and the subsequent of discovery of chlorine bleaching by Berthollet gave us our modern conceptual notion of bleach and bleaching. The develoment of bleaching powder was made by Scottish chemist Charles Tennant who took a patent in 1799.  Tennant’s associate, Charles MacIntosh, is thought to be a contributor to this invention.  Bleaching liquors and powders soon became an important raw material for the bleaching of paper and fabric.

The procedure described by Dunbar is a chemical process.  It tells the user when the extraction is complete, qualitatively at least, by a folksy means of specific gravity determination. This is really very clever- it uses a common object to do the test and the result is readily apparent.  Bleaching in the early 18th century involved the use of soaps and of urine treatment and bleaching fields- a far cry from what we now think of as bleaching.

Oil Well Torpedoes and Grubbin’ Stumps

We tend to think of some things as being relatively new. I’m thinking of the gas and oil extraction technique of fracturing, or fracking.  In the 1884 third edition of The Modern High Explosives, Nitro-glycerine and Dynamite by Manuel Eissler, p 311, there is a mention of the practice of exploding nitroglycerine charges at the bottom of oil and water wells to renew or increase the flow. The author states that this is a popular technique in Pennsylvania at the time of writing.

On p 318 of the same book, Eissler describes the economics of blasting stumps. In general, the process of removing stumps was called “grubbing”. Enterprising fellows knowledgeable with nitroglycerine took little time in applying the explosive power of this oily liquid to clearing the land of stumps.  

Eissler describes the economics of explosive grubbing as follows:  Three pounds of No. 1 dynamite cost $1.50, labor cost 20 cents per hour, 25 ft of fuse cost 1 cent per foot, and 17 percussion caps cost 1 cent each.  Grubbing 17 oak stumps cost $22.52 with 99 man hours for chopping and piling the pieces.  Grubbing with an axe took 142 man hours and cost $28.40.  No. 1 dynamite was comprised of 75 % nitroglycerin and 25 % absorbent.

Bertholet’s discovery of potassium chlorate (oxygenized muriate of potash) happened in 1785. He observed

“that it appears to include the elements of thunder in its particles; and Nature seems to have concentrated all her powers of detonation, fulmination, and inflammation in this terrible compound”. 

Eissler goes on to say that attempts to prepare gunpowder or blasting powder with potassium chlorate lead only to loss of life and limb for the luckless experimenters with this compound.  Two of Bertholet’s artisans employed to do experiments with this material were killed in 1788.  The hazards associated with both manufacture and use of compositions of potassium chlorate were too great to allow this substance to see much commercial application by the 1880’s.