Redartz: Greetings, fellow former future scientists (apologies to anyone who actually is a scientist)! All of us, doubtlessly, spent many childhood hours busily playing with action figures, cars, games, dolls (hey, we're all-inclusive here), and many other toys. Some of us, though, had parents who perhaps hoped to encourage potential career choices by endowing us with more educational playthings. Specifically speaking, toys based upon science and technology. And there were many such things available; a casual perusal of a vintage Sears Christmas Catalog will show you numerous examples.
A.C. Gilbert was one prominent manufacturer of such toys. Gilbert Chemistry labs, Microscope labs, Telescopes, Geology labs, and other sets were quite popular from the 1950's on. Gilbert Erector sets gave many of us an education in construction and motorization. And there were many other companies busily helping promote science as well: Remco, Science Fair, Hasbro, even Radio Shack. They filled department store shelves with anatomical model kits, electronics labs, rock tumblers, computer kits,weather stations, crystal radio kits, fossil excavating sets,and so on. Just about any field of science could be explored by purchasing the appropriate set and experimenting to your heart's content.
As for me: there were many of these sets on my shelves at one time or another. The Gilbert chemistry set was an early introduction to scientific experimentation. The instruction book contained many step-by-step experiments for the budding chemist to perform. Of course, 8-year-old me was just as likely to randomly mix a pile of chemicals just to see what happened. Never blew anything up, at least...
Then there was the Geology lab. It was actually called a "Rock Identification Computer", and consisted of a plastic frame housing a stack of punch-hole cards. There were several devices: a streak plate, a specific gravity scale and a hardness tester with which to check out your mineral specimen. Then you would insert keys into the appropriate result slots, and the 'computer' would release cards identifiying the likely type of rock you had. It was pretty interesting and worked rather well; the set included about 20 rocks and minerals to start on. Downside- the sample of Halite (essentially rock salt) kept getting smaller and smaller, as my brother and I kept licking it...
We also had a Microscope lab. That was fascinating- I'd find insects, leaves, coins,anything that would fit on the microscope stage. Then ramp up the focus and magnification as high as it would go. Another rewarding use of the scope was to examine pond water. It was amazing to put a drop on a slide and see all those odd little creatures: vorticella, spyrogyra, daphnia, parameciums, etc (yes, the names still stick in my head). And we would stick ourselves with a needle just to look at the blood cells.
buil
Somehow we managed to survive those sets, with all their glass tubing, scalpels, knives, needles, chemicals, bunsen burners, heating elements and the like. It never led to a career, but playing with those sets was a lot of fun, and did serve to increase our knowledge of the sciences. How many of you had the chance to play "mad scientist", or look at the moon through your telescope, or build a 'visible man'?
11 comments:
Fun topic today... for others. Man, I am so wired as a humanities guy that math and science have never been in my wheelhouse. I always found those two subjects, regardless of the topic of study (algebra, geometry, physical and biological sciences) to be less interesting and more challenging to me. And all the way through college! In fact, for my physical science required credit in college I decided that astronomy would be cool. A semester of looking through telescopes? Sign me up! Then I got in there and the first two hours of class each night was physics! Ugh... Thankfully, though I'd gotten Cs in physics in high school I at least knew what the prof was talking about.
However, I did have the same geology set you pictured. I probably received it for Christmas or my birthday around the time I was 8 years old. All I can recall is that it sparked an interest in finding "fool's gold" rocks, and that my disappointment was boundless that I could not take the chemicals that were included in the kit and create an explosion in my bedroom such that I would emerge with super powers.
Doug
I had the visible man, microscope and chemistry set. Always fun to imagine that you were one mishap away from being Spider-Man.
Reading Doug's comments caused some introspection. Though I have an engineering degree from Purdue, I never, ever did one of those kits. That should have been a hint about career choices b/c I have never worked as an engineer, LOL.
And, in spite of all the studies, I still can't get past Chapter 5 of any book "for the average layman" that explains why E=MC2. I have trouble with the geometry when they plot space vs time on a 2 dimensional graph, since "space" is 3 dimensions in the first place, LOL. Supposedly Einstein's "weakness" in Geometry held him up a few years before releasing his theories of relativity, so I am in good company???? LOL!
Incidentally, whenever I see young folks saying they want to study engineering, I ask them, "Have you ever worked one of those kits, or taken apart a lawn mower out of curiosity, or built a bridge out of popsicle sticks, written sware code on your own volition, or done anything to suggest you really have an interest in engineering?"
Nope.
I think the closest I came to any basis in science in my childhood would've been when I was mixing my Revell model paints to create my own colors to enhance my many model kits.
Otherwise, I was more like a mad scientist when pouring my PlastiGoop into molds & baking my Thing Maker Creepy Crawlies & Incredible Edibles.
Beyond that, perhaps trying to grow Sea Monkeys & Magic Rocks kits under my desk lamp, or just replacing the batteries in my various Robots, like King Ding & his Robot Brain.
The only other science related possibilities would've been calculating how many spoonfuls of sugar to add to my non-sweetened cereals, mixing up a dessert of 1-2-3 Jello, setting the oven to right temperature and time for my Libbyland Frozen Safari TV Dinner, or trying to figure out how many licks it took to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop.
Oh, well, somehow I still managed to become a Civil Engineer! Maybe that came from figuring out the layout of my Hot Wheels tracks to prevent (or create?) crashes!
I think these kits and their impact have more to do with learning style than whether they are 'good' or 'bad' as objects. I was given a chemistry set and microscope when I was 9 years old or so, and beyond a half-hearted attempt to become a superhero (reference: Doug)I put them away and went back to the books.
It was only later that I stopped seeing that as a failure on my part and that it was simply a function of the way I learnt stuff.
PS Because it bothered me...
"Learned vs. learnt
Learned is the more common past tense and past participle of the verb learn. Learnt is a variant especially common outside North America. In British writing, for instance, it appears about once for every three instances of learned. In the U.S. and Canada, meanwhile, learnt appears only once for approximately every 500 instances of learned, and it’s generally considered colloquial."
source: www.grammarist.com
I never had any of this science stuff as a kid; my friend had a microscope, which I thought was cool (I was probably channeling Peter Parker) and I always wanted a telescope, but never got one. I always wondered about those Science Lab kits ... didn't the ones in the 1950s come with real uranium?
I remember in the Sears Xmas Catalogue they always made Rock Tumblers look like so much fun, but I never knew anyone who actually had one.
I got my kids a rock tumbler. Throw in a few rocks, some abrasive powder, plug it in and the drum rotates for a day or three. Nothing to do but open the drum and behold some shiny rocks! For my next trick.... yawn...
Doug and Selenarch- You weren't the only ones hoping to stumble upon super powers. All the science sets, and no special chemical formula. And the erector set wasn't sufficient to create an exoskeleton. Alas...
Disneymarvel- you have a fine lineup of scientific pursuits! The chemistry of a Thingmaker, the physics of a Hot Wheels track- doesn't get much better than that!
And who was "King Ding and his robot brain"?
Mike Wilson- quite right, Gilbert had an atomic energy lab that included Uranium ore back in the 50's. Now that's a toy to get super powers from...
Charlie- your rock tumbler worked a lot faster than mine! It took about a month of tumbling to get a polished agate. They did look nice, though.
I had the chemistry set and had fun with making "smoke" with the sulfur and combining other chemicals for liquid color changes. I brought parts in for my 2nd Grade Show and Tell. I am Still amazed that at 8 years old we would play with chemicals and bunsen burners. I liked science but had no real aspirations; I enjoyed the experiments that seemed like magic tricks.
I also had the Electronic set and actually just bought the Radio Shack modern version for my sons two weeks ago. We have been busy wiring up sound effects. Next up - the strobe light! The set is pretty similar to how I remembered it back in the day.
My parents gave me that very microscope shown above for Christmas one year when I was a youngster. And do you know what? I never used it.
Charlie, my younger brother had no aspirations to be an engineer, but that didn't stop him from pulling apart the lawn-mower, as well as several other pieces of gear, before Dad took him aside for a quiet talk.
Post a Comment