Creations Of Fire: Chemistry's Lively History From Alchemy To The Atomic Age

Review of "Creations of fire: chemistry's lively history from alchemy to the atomic age"Authors: Cathy Cobb and Harold Goldwhite.Reviewed in 2000 by W. P. Palmer This is one of many histories of chemistry currently available in the market, some of which have been discussed by this reviewer. All of these histories are different, usually in the emphasis given to particular chemists or to particular periods. This history is different in two major aspects- it covers a longer period of history, starting earlier than most (1000,000 BCE) and ending later than most (1960s).It also tells the history as a continuous story with each section, almost without exception leading into the next section. This may be criticised as being an artifice as the connections are, on occasions, a little forced and stylistically it does seem repetitive, but it does make the point that the story of chemistry is continuous over this lengthy period of history. The book is well proof-read, though I did not a typographical error on p. 87 where 'know' is printed for 'known' (line 15). Non-standard abbreviations occur such as 'ad' for advertisement (p.299). There are some politically naive statements, such as that made when discussing the use of the atomic bomb on Japan (p. 408).There are attempts at humour "So the history of radiochemistry is part of the history of chemistry - although, we admit, there were a few physicists involved." There are many good stories of the surprising actions of famous scientists. There are some good explanations, simplifying difficult scientific concepts, which, I think are original. In many ways the book sets out to be a popular history of chemistry, for those wanting a good story, yet there is real scholarship in the book and I heartily recommend it as adding yet another interpretation of chemistry's fascinating history.BILL PALMER

This has been great, but i am bothered by the number of typos in this edition. Wondering if the actual book has been edited better. For example pg 359 it refers to "understanding staicture (sic) and bonding" and that's not the first time staicture has been used. I just finally got annoyed enough to ponder. I think the material is great, love the bio chemistry and organic histories which I've not seen before. Would be a great resource for highlighting chemists in a classroom.

As an overview of the history of chemistry, I think it is well done. It's strength lies in describing the social as well as the scientific attitudes of a given historical period as well as sharing the personal backgrounds of the main players. Her biographical research displays a fair sharing of genders that played a significant role in their contributions to the science of chemistry. Technical explanations were made user friendly via appropriate analogy examples.My only disappointment was the frequency of misspellings. I don't know if this was caused by the scanning transmission from the original script to the Kindle or if they were original errors in the script.

Very good, used but barely noticable.

For me, knowing how a science developed often seems like the best way to understand its basic ideas. Sight unseen, this book sounded like my best bet for a history of chemistry. Not a chemist myself, but the son of one with private labs in our basement, I took a year of chem in high school long ago and in recent years have read a fair amount of bio-science that naturally visits chemical knowledge. So I'm a little familiar with the basics, and I thought maybe learning how modern chemistry came to be would give me a similar understanding to the one I got of calculus (which I also studied in college) by learning what practical problems Newton was trying to solve (like how high to aim a cannon ball) when he invented calculus and added it to algebra.Unfortunately, this book does a poor job of describing what the early modern chemists were actually doing as they tried to figure out that there might be more than one kind of "air", which seems to have been the key to realizing both that matter is comprised of many different elements and that matter is atomic. I imagine other chemists can visualize what the groping scientists were actually doing; but oftentimes I couldn't. Although every intro chemistry textbook is loaded with sketches and diagrams, this book has almost none besides historical faces. If you don't already know what simple chemical lab equipment looks like (my wife had no idea what a "retort" is, though I happen to know because of my upbringing), this book won't tell you, and you won't be able to figure out how these guys were managing to do things like separate one invisible gas ("air") from another. (There is an image of the all-important Periodic Table, but you may not notice it at first; it's printed on the inside back cover of the paperback edition.)The book is poorly prepared as history as well. Its summaries of what was going on at certain times in broader world history are often glib and sometimes--to my mind--suspect. More certainly, the text is capricious about where an actual date (year) is stated for when a certain scientist was doing his or her work. Often it proceeds through general periods of time, sometimes describing scientists' contribution without ever actually say when those scientists lived or worked. Inasmuch as there are important questions of who else's work they were building on, these omissions are annoying at best.I've hesitated above to lay these problems at the feet of the authors. Some of them surely should have been spotted resolved by the editors at Perseus. But then, there are obvious typos here and there in the book, so maybe there was little editing. Too bad.All in all, I suspect one might get at least as good a history of chemistry for non-chemists by browsing it on Wiki.

I got this book a few years ago and dipped into it occasionally. I wasn't too impressed. It struck me as a collection of mini-biographies of chemists rather than a history of chemistry.Then I read the entry on Priestly. I have a high regard for Priestly, as a pioneering chemist, as an intellectual, and as a human being. But the article on Priestly was short, factually incorrect, obtuse (that is, the opposite of insightful), and insulting to the man. I could not believe that a book that contained that passage could be trusted on any other subject. I got rid of it.As they say, your mileage may vary. Other folks seem to like the book. Maybe the authors were having a bad day when they wrote the section on Priestly, and other sections are better... So I'll offer these remarks simply as a report of one person's experience with the book.

This is a fascinating and well written account of the development of the science of Chemistry from it's alchemical beginnings to the atomic theory and it's ramifications. The lives and achievements of the scientists are well researched.

Very readable.

My son used this book and said he enjoyed it