Proton (or hydrogen) 13C and other types NMR is damn difficult when it comes to interpretation. Even the guys with PhD's when I did it were back for ongoing refresher courses.

The machine is off the planet as far as lab equipment goes in price. Cannot bring in near the machine anything metal at all or mobile phones etc. The superconducting magnets in the thing are horrendously powerful.

Basically you dissolve the compound in a suitable solvent, load it into a tube, drop it down the centre while a jet of air spins the container and holds it in a central position. Use the computer to do what you want. Thats the easy part.

Then you get your printout and that is difficult to interpret. A simple compound can take several hours to identify and other tests (physical, chemical, IR, X-Ray diffrac) are useful. Not easy.

I've never done it, but when I can afford some decent analytical kit, IR and either GC or LC-MS are probably what I'l go for.

And in this place I've nowhere to put an NMR machine, at least not that won't be going near a shitload of electronic equipment of some or orther kind.

IR and GC are good and relatively simple to use. Need a few special attachments for IR though, KBr disc equipment, Nujol, gas cells etc, but computer is just normal XP.
GC need a range of tubes, useful but compounds sensitive to heat cannot be used easily. HPLC (industry wide use) is best with a mass spectro. And is automated if required.

I would use an IR and a HPLC with mass spectro, IR gives you an idea what you are dealing with, HPLC along with a standard confirms. Chem tests / derivatives help. Plus if never having done it, there is a ton of theory of which a lot is very high level physics goes along with IR.

Those who can master HPLC are in very high demand in industry and would certainly suit someone with aspies. Again, depends on what you want to do.

Damn, I'm *** at physics, to put it bluntly, numbers don't agree with me, damn dyscalculia and all that.

I'm mostly self-interested (not that way hahaha) in chemistry, psychopharmacology and biology mainly, and a lot of plants have some pretty interesting actives in them, as do a lot of fungi, and chances are, a private citizen isn't going to be able to BUY reference standards easily, or indeed at all for more obscure compounds, some of the big companies like Sigma -aldrich and co won't have anything to do with people who aren't connecting through a university etc.

Not that I usually let that stop me, but for analytical purity reference standards, there isn't often that much option really, and damn christ alive, some of those companies, most of them I've dealt with, that will sell to individuals, still assume for the most part they will be dealing with organisations and price-gouge accordingly .

Pre-college, I liked my chemstry course.  It was all hands-on wet lab--well, almost all.  The first two weeks were nothing but lab safety.

Except for that, though, I was much happier with college science.  Of course, I was much happier with college sociology, anthropology, history, and economics than I was with "social studies", too.

I didn't learn any science in school. However, I rather enjoyed my astronomy obsession outside of it.

Damn, I'm *** at physics, to put it bluntly, numbers don't agree with me, damn dyscalculia and all that.

I'm mostly self-interested (not that way hahaha) in chemistry, psychopharmacology and biology mainly, and a lot of plants have some pretty interesting actives in them, as do a lot of fungi, and chances are, a private citizen isn't going to be able to BUY reference standards easily, or indeed at all for more obscure compounds, some of the big companies like Sigma -aldrich and co won't have anything to do with people who aren't connecting through a university etc.

Not that I usually let that stop me, but for analytical purity reference standards, there isn't often that much option really, and damn christ alive, some of those companies, most of them I've dealt with, that will sell to individuals, still assume for the most part they will be dealing with organisations and price-gouge accordingly .

To get anything much done with chemistry above the basics you will need a degree and other requirements. Otherwise, the odds are you'll get a knock on the door at the most inconvenient time and make front page news.

Even when I was doing advanced organic chemistry at the university and playing around with various chemicals I had to sign my life away and prove when finished nothing was being diverted or stolen.

Note: AR grade reference chemicals are VERY expensive. And this includes water. As for deuterated water, well. The trick is to set up the process / lab so you don't have to rely on using them very much. But that is another subject entirely to learn. Much unwelcome stats invovled.

I can guarantee university level chemistry is a world removed from senior / college chemistry.

Talking about water, there is opportunity for research work on it. The chemistry is not fully understood or in many other areas.

Oh damn, I have to disagree, you would be surprised what the industrious amateur can do, IU want to eventually build up to degree level myself, atm all I have is GCSE and what I have learned through my own reading/experimentation.

What organics one can't buy, one can usually make, and for chemicals on the inorg/reagens in general side, one can usually make, if determined enough, I've heard of people building an arc furnace for reduction of phosphate rock to the white allotrope of P for instance, or even hydrazine on the cheap

I'm more a phytochem/mycologist first and formost, but I am bloody interested in synthetic chemistry on the organic side, especially GABA/5HT/SERT/DAT

What I like about not doing things formally, is I have complete control over what, how, whens and wherefores of my projects without having to bugger about worrying about approval from ethics comittees, funding departments (but damn do I ever wish I did have my own funding department haha) or stuffed shirt-'n-tie types in general.

I very much doubt I would get such approval for a fraction of a percent of my projects

Oh damn, I have to disagree, you would be surprised what the industrious amateur can do, IU want to eventually build up to degree level myself, atm all I have is GCSE and what I have learned through my own reading/experimentation.

What organics one can't buy, one can usually make, and for chemicals on the inorg/reagens in general side, one can usually make, if determined enough, I've heard of people building an arc furnace for reduction of phosphate rock to the white allotrope of P for instance, or even hydrazine on the cheap

I'm more a phytochem/mycologist first and formost, but I am bloody interested in synthetic chemistry on the organic side, especially GABA/5HT/SERT/DAT

What I like about not doing things formally, is I have complete control over what, how, whens and wherefores of my projects without having to bugger about worrying about approval from ethics comittees, funding departments (but damn do I ever wish I did have my own funding department haha) or stuffed shirt-'n-tie types in general.

I very much doubt I would get such approval for a fraction of a percent of my projects

Looks like I can't dissuade you from conducting chemistry experiments at home.
Organic chemistry needs to be conducted carefully if attempting this at home. Its unfortunate someone could send the blue light brigade around if not conducted carefully and to the full letter of the law. Beware. you could always get together with a business incubator site if wanting to conduct research on your own. There are a few around. Even at university you have to be extremly careful what you do. A lot of processes are off limits without specialised dispensation from law authorities.

Those who want to muck around with white P at home, good way to become very sick. If you don't know what you are doing advanced chemistry is extremly dangerous and not by explosions either.

You'll need a good selection of grigand reactants etc and specialised hardware to construct your own molecules. It is done all the time. Plus some means of separation.

However, there is nothing preventing you doing theoretical work on constructing a particular molecule or discovering a new molecule from plant / animal etc source. TLC will do at home. Just stick to what you can do easily at home.

I really want to get a good telescope, like we used in my Astronomy Lab class at the college. Actually, if I could I'd have my own personal observatory, though that's not at all likely.

I'd like to teach physics someday. Electronics seriously kicks butt, though probably astrophysics or particle physics will become my specialty.

I really want to get a good telescope, like we used in my Astronomy Lab class at the college. Actually, if I could I'd have my own personal observatory, though that's not at all likely.

I'd like to teach physics someday. Electronics seriously kicks butt, though probably astrophysics or particle physics will become my specialty.

Excellent idea. To be applauded.

I am a strong believer in Einstein's advice about physics teaching:

The first week or two, show only what is interesting to see.

Especially in regular high school physics classes where they don't teach much anyway, I don't see why this is not considered doable, much less mandatory, to follow this advice. Would probably make it easier for students to sustain attention in future studies, and must be pretty easy nowadays with TV and Internet and multimedia.

Main problem with most people learning physics is what think you know is probably the opposite to what is taught. This is a major roadblock to learning. eg think about gravity. ball thrown up, stationary at top, falling. What is the force on the ball? Does it change?

I enjoyed Physics and Earth Science a great deal.  I also liked Chemistry and Biology.  I enjoyed Astronomy in college, especially since I had experience as an Amateur since I was 6.

The only science I did below age 11 was physics. My best time was at the end of high school, around age 15, in the top class and one of the most brilliant. I was always good at astronomy, but when I went to college they said I couldn't do physics because I got a C in Maths (yet I was supposed to get a B). However, I did combined Science at school which included Chemistry, Biology and Physics. I was best at Biology. The first college year I took Biology (and put it third under Psychology and Media). It became my chosen subject. Now I have lost knowledge of Biology and also drive, but I am going to study this in a month at a higher level. Psychology was an odd subject to me, I suddenly excelled over most students when I was predicted less than them.
I was forced to do Chemistry in 2nd year, couldn't do physics so I aggravated a hidden asthma condition by doing Chemistry. However, it made a dream of mine come true (from 10 months or so before, a strange dream I had which lead to a kind of deja vu). I also met one of the Aspie-like Chemistry teachers and eventually the other (who was my form teacher the next year). The first teacher didn't care much for me and wouldn't help me with calculations (I knew the basics, but got the exam type answers wrong). Needless to say, I failed Chemistry. I also met an Aspie-like classmate who never showed expression or even talked. The next year I got an aspie form tutor and he was no way as unsociable as my Chemistry teacher.
I passed Biology though, mainly through my strict driven 1st year teacher and the help of my lovely 2nd year teacher. The annoying thing about college was that I was in the middle of the class. There was always someone better than me :|.
My best time was definately high school . Primary school couldn't even afford a lab, pushing me into 2nd set for science for one year in high school because I couldn't get a level 6. I really owe it to my old Maths teacher, I was lowest in set 3 at the start of high school and I got to near the top of set 1 by the end (I would have been predicted an E, but I was predicted a B). Shame I couldn't get the B.