Talk:Forensic chemistry

message: Well, there is aproximetly zero information about what really are chemical forensics, there are not mentioned fibers, glass, paint, metal, polymer . . . (and so on), FTIR is only one of the methods, and it is used for polymer investigation. 
I think this article must be expanded
The author does not seem to have a good understanding of his tools.  Not only does he make generalizations (not all mass specs use EI), but he is flat out wrong about the FTIR:
"The molecular bonds of all compounds react differently and create unique patterns upon exposure to a beam of infrared light. The unique pattern created is known as the fingerprint for that drug."
there are so many problems with that description, I barely know where to begin.  first of all, not all compounds absorb IR, although most compounds of forensic interest will.  
secondly, "react" is a bad word to use in this description, because anyone who can accurately claim to be a chemist knows that IR light does not have enough energy to essentially any chemistry (there is surely a counter example to this, but they are few).  
Thirdly, and most importantly, the absorption of IR light by a sample does not "create unique patterns."  Basically what I am saying is that FTIR does not work on the principle of emission, it works on the principle of ABSORPTION.  the pattern that you look at is the pattern representing the wavelengths of light that have been absorbed, contrasted with those wavelengths that have NOT been absorbed.  you are not looking at the pattern of light that was "created" by the compound when it was irradiated with light (emission).  In fact, when you are discussing a macroscopic sample (milligrams:  you are looking at ensemble properties, not single molecule properties) the EMISSION of IR light is a CONTINUOUS function of wavelength, because the sample, sample holder, hell the entire instrument is a blackbody, and therefore the discrete and highly specific pattern that you are hoping for does not exist for emission, only absorption.
also the grammar is kind of poor, not that I claim any better; that is why I did not edit the article.Gordonliu420 (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So expand and change where needed. I did not write the original but have added forensic details.Peterlewis (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion needed

message: Please explain why law enforcement tag has been removed from the article. It is a topic which should be studied by every investigator, police or otherwise. Peterlewis 17:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored.  We have a lot of editors who make mistakes. Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Enforcement

message: Hello, I edited the definition of forensic chemistry because it was wrong (in the sense of the English Language). As I pointed out in the article, Forensics is anything of/or pertaining to the courts. This was hammered into me ever since my first day in college as a Criminal Justice major. I cringed when I saw that they had the definition wrong. Don't mean to step on anyone's toes, but I just had to fix it. Sorry and thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.116.160 (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Edit 

message: A proposal has been made to form a WikiProject for forensic science. Please add your name to the list if you wish to contribute to this endeavour. TimothyPilgrim (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for WikiProject 

message: No concern 2001:FD8:2648:13D8:173E:7A06:1584:C038 (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronological history in order