| Pages:
1
2
3 |
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5126
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
For what it's worth, if you want to find European standards they are called "EN" rather than ISO. Of course, quite a lot of them are the same because
there's no point reinventing the wheel.
BTW, Where did you say that Iso isn't European before I did. Was it here somewhere?
"
All the major US lab glass companies produce short, medium, and long taper joints and will put whatever one you want on their products.
That's wht companies like Ace Glass have custom shops for.
In the era of globalization, EU glassmakers like Schott would doubtless like to enter the US market and vice versa. The US companies may have a
tougher time in the EU market than Schott etc will have in the US market.
No businessman likes being poked and prodded by the ISO, nor should they? "
Beacuse that's the only post you made between S C Wack Calling ISO standards European and my pointing out that they were not.
[Edited on 8-2-2007 by unionised]
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Quote:
"Correct me if I am wrong but NIST is a government agency.
Dates from 1901, part of Commerce Department.
ASTM is a private organization.
ISO is an NGO, which means it is a pretentious private organization which would like to be santified by the UN It also is an offshoot of what is now
the IEEE.
ANSI, is government or private? It's private despite calling itself a national institute, which is highly misleading, it is ninety years old and an
offshoot of what is now the IEEE.
And yes very much in bed with ISO.
NOTE the only one of these with any official standing at all is NIST.
ISO is not part of the European Union government. It is a typical self promoting self serving NGO and its encroachments on national sovereignty should
be regarded with due suspicion. ANSI is a creature of ISO.
I am especially dubious of ISO14000 which is their environmental standardization initiative . I bet it bodes no good for chemistry and chemists."
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5126
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Oh, that sort of before.
posted on 6-2-2007 at 04:02 PM
"Besides which you seem to have missed a rather important point. America (specifically ANSI) is part of ISO, so those ISO standards that you seem to
feel are being foisted upon you (which you have wrongly labeled as Euro standards) are every bit as American as they are, for example, English or
French.
posted on 7-2-2007 at 12:56 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but NIST is a government agency.
Dates from 1901, part of Commerce Department.......
|
|
|
S.C. Wack
bibliomaster
Posts: 2419
Registered: 7-5-2004
Location: Cornworld, Central USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enhanced
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by unionised
For what it's worth, if you want to find European standards they are called "EN" rather than ISO. |
Copy/paste from Schott-Duran:
"In addition to the international standard ISO 3585,
which lays down the type of borosilicate glass 3.3,
DURAN® laboratory glassware also conforms to
the many standards for glass laboratory items; for
example DIN 12 331/ISO 3819 for beakers and
DIN 12 347/ISO 1773 for flat bottom flasks.
The particular DIN/ISO standard is indicated on the
product pages of this catalog. When changes are
made to the DIN, e. g. as a result of adapting to ISO
recommendations, our dimensions are modified
appropriately in a reasonable time."
Had the thread been on Chinese glassware, I would have referred to Chinese standards as Chinese standards. Had we been talking of African glassware, I
would have referred to their standards as African standards. Does this not make sense?
Copy/paste from Corning/Pyrex:
"Standard Taper:
...is the symbol used to designate interchangeable glass joints, stoppers and stopcocks complying with the requirements of ASTM E-676, and
requirements of ASTM E-675. All mating parts are finished to a 1:10 taper.
Spherical Joint
...is the designation for spherical (semi-ball) joints complying with ASTM E-677.
---
Standard Taper
Symbol used to designate interchangeable joints, stoppers and stopcocks that comply with the requirements of Commercial Standard CS-21 published by
N.I.S.T.
Spherical Joint
Symbol designates spherical joints that comply with CS-21."
As the ASTM link that I posted points out, the ASTM and NIST specs for joints are closely related. I don't know why you're going on and on about ANSI,
it has nothing to do with this thread and you're the only one talking about them.
[Edited on 8-2-2007 by S.C. Wack]
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5126
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
"Had the thread been on Chinese glassware, I would have referred to Chinese standards as Chinese standards. Had we been talking of African glassware,
I would have referred to their standards as African standards. Does this not make sense?"
Yes it does.
And if you wanted to talk anout European standards you should have refered to European standards; the EN series (as far as I know there isn't one for
glassware but I haven't looked).
However, what you actually talked about was the ISO standard which (as has been discussed at some length) is not a European standard- it's the one
drawn up by ISO who are an independent group, not part of of the European government and including representation from most of the world. But you
refered to them as European standards which they never were and probably never will be.
The list of members of ISO includes ANSI and thus proves that Americans take part in ISO too. That means it isn't a European standard. Since you said
(in this thread) that it was, it is reasonable to point out that you are mistaken and to offer evidence of this. That's why it has relevence to this
thread. Of course, since there's no such thing as an EU ISO standard fitting the whole thread is wrong headed.
The glassware is not made by a standards committee, it's made by companies like Schott. They comply with their own local standard (DIN because they
are a German company) and also with the ISO standard because (rightly or wrongly) it is recognised throughout the world and they want to sell
internationally.
If they wanted to sell to the roughly 5% of the worlds population who are in the USA they might have chosen to adopt a US standard. The other 95% of
us don't see any particular reason to follow the USA's standards. If the USA decided to join in with the vast majority (there are about 300 million
Americans and about 6 billion people) the problem would go away.
The glassware still fits together.
|
|
|
S.C. Wack
bibliomaster
Posts: 2419
Registered: 7-5-2004
Location: Cornworld, Central USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enhanced
|
|
Yeah, I was so wrong to tag a link to the actual standards used by Euro lab glass manufacturers with "Euro standards". What a huge blunder.
[Edited on 9-2-2007 by S.C. Wack]
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5126
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Well, I guess it wasn't such a big mistake the first time, but I'm puzzled about your doing it again. Of course going on about the Euopeans forcing
you to adopt EU standards was also wrong.
And then putting this in didn't help understanding.
"I always find it funny how Euros (vulture comes to mind) blame amerika for all the world's problems and see it as some sort of dictator, when
problems are a human condition and much dictatorshit happens in Brussels and elsewhere in the EU."
It seems to me to be a bit like the thread somewhere on this site about "Texas law".
DIN standards are German and Germany is part of Europe so DIN standards must be European standards.
Texas is part of America so Texas law must be American law.
Except it isn't really.
BTW, My guess is the Schott-Duran would prefer to be thought of as a world company rather than European, but I haven't checked.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
DIN is certainly the German standard.
ISO again is not a Euro entity, it is a global NGO with roots to the pre WWII IEN now known as IEEE which started off rather a creature of Edison
Electric.
It is worth noting that according to their own website ISO does not develop standards, rather if you condense all their highfalluting language, they
are a middleman.
So, if something is a ISO/DIN standard it was developed as a German standard, then adopted as an ISO standard later.
Which may or may not be same as the EN official European standard. Probably is but if so that probably has more to do with standardizing on the DIN
than with ISO butting in.
NGOs over time lose focus and just become self serving cottage industries. And ISO is an old NGO.
I am not a huge fan of IEEE mostly because of their role in the revisionist history of electrical technology being written at Case Western, which
glorifies Edison (while taking a lot of money from Edison Institute) at the expense of the geniuses who actually did the creative work, particularly
Nicola Tesla.
Edison was a hack of a scientist. His main invention was the industrial research lab. But he was a plodder and an exploiter.
|
|
|
S.C. Wack
bibliomaster
Posts: 2419
Registered: 7-5-2004
Location: Cornworld, Central USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enhanced
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by unionised
Of course going on about the Euopeans forcing you to adopt EU standards was also wrong.
DIN standards are German and Germany is part of Europe so DIN standards must be European standards.
|
1. What the fuck are you talking about? Now you're just making things up. My original post can only be read in the context of the post that I was
replying to, immediately above it.
2. The Schott quote says that the DIN adopts ISO standards. They are one and the same. Reread the last sentence of the Schott quote until you get it.
Yes, it's true: Schott-Duran is the largest European laboratory glassware manufacturer, ergo the ISO standard is indeed a standard for tapered joints,
and there is nothing wrong with the very first post in this thread.
From where I'm sitting, you've got some sort of problem. Get back to us when you find a major Euro manufacturer of lab glass that does not follow ISO
standards.
[Edited on 9-2-2007 by S.C. Wack]
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5126
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
1 I'm talking about this; for the first part....
"Why is it that we have to conform to Euro standards, "
An assertion made without any evidence and I didn't make it up; you wrote it.
For the record, here is the post above which gives it context.
"
Its not so much as they are different standards, just that as allways america likes to do things backwards. No offense but you guys have a way of
complying to international standards but applying your own twist so its not entirely compatible and requires everything to be made differently.
Do you know how many textbooks i have labled, "international addition: not for sale in the US" ??? different vcr formats, etc.... prefered units of
measure all that crap. All my chem lectures are prefaced with, "Any americans in here today?" "
My best guess it that relates to the same point I made earlier, specifically this one.
"The other 95% of us don't see any particular reason to follow the USA's standards. If the USA decided to join in with the vast majority (there are
about 300 million Americans and about 6 billion people) the problem would go away."
For the second part. Hey! shucks- you pointed out the importance of context. Please let others judge the effect of context rather than running
randomly chosen quotes together like this.
"Originally posted by unionised
Of course going on about the Euopeans forcing you to adopt EU standards was also wrong.
DIN standards are German and Germany is part of Europe so DIN standards must be European standards.
"
Let's do something dull an put it back in its context; tricky because those two clauses were in totally different contexts.
This is what I wrote.
"It seems to me to be a bit like the thread somewhere on this site about "Texas law".
DIN standards are German and Germany is part of Europe so DIN standards must be European standards.
Texas is part of America so Texas law must be American law.
Except it isn't really."
I was pointing out that being subject to the standards of one EU country does not mean being subject to EU standards. I even gave an example to help
people out.
2
"The Schott quote says that the DIN adopts ISO standards. They are one and the same"
Er, no. Here's that last sentence.
"When changes are made to the DIN, e. g. as a result of adapting to ISO recommendations, our dimensions are modified appropriately in a reasonable
time."
And, tacitly for other reasons. DIN standards my change without a change in ISO. Do you understand what e.g. means? What they actually say is they
will stick to their own DIN standard; if that changes then they will change. That seems like reasonable local politics to me.
I clearly have a problem; it is that not all of what you say agrees with the evidence. Get back to me when you have addressed this. This is a
scientific forum; if you cannot provide evidence for an assertion like
"Euros (vulture comes to mind) blame amerika for all the world's problems and see it as some sort of dictator"
you ought not to make it.
As for ". Get back to us when you find a major Euro manufacturer of lab glass that does not follow ISO standards."
I can't see why it can matter that any European ( or any other nationality) manufacturer follows an international standard or not. It's not my problem
and it doesn't make the standard any more European.
|
|
|
earpain
Hazard to Others
Posts: 102
Registered: 11-9-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
Standard Marijuana Taper
Hi everyone. I chose to bump this 2007 thread because it seemed to have the highest level of nit-pickery, which is actually super useful when making
a large glassware order.
So besides S/T, often 24/40, and then the world standard, I feel it's time to address the 'stoner-standard'....or maybe more scientifically I will
refer to it as the 'Cannabis Industry' ground glass standard.
So both of the pictures here depict the same female ground glass connector, and the same device(I really cannot figure out the purpose of the device,
but it happens to serve as an amazing vacuum trap or gas bubbler). In both pictures it is the bottom piece.
However the ground glass hollow stopper is not of the cannabis kin. It came with a chinese complicated scientific steam distillation kit. The joints
were all 24/40 except there was a glass 2L steam generator with two necks. A main, centrally position neck which was 24/40, and a second smaller neck
which merely served as a means to add more water into the steam generating flask without interrupting the distillation. The female piece was indeed
labeled with TWO NUMBERS, and I do recall seeiing them often in the science world. That glass stopper (scientific) is flawlessly compatible with
every female connector in this pile of odd devices that my trash exploring friend gifted to me.
There does not appear to be a central standards committee for cannabis smoking/vaping/atomizing ground glass taper.
Though most claim it will always be one of three, and the largest is '18mm'. Which is what my ruler is measuring the ID of the largest end of the
female connectors to be.
If I wanted to order compatible joints with this cannabis standard, would 19/22 be the likely culprit? It seems that that cannabis standard
implicitly follows the same taper ratio, which to be honest, does make ground glass confusion a little easier.
 
|
|
|
dawt
Hazard to Self
Posts: 74
Registered: 9-5-2016
Location: EU
Member Is Offline
Mood: fluorescent
|
|
Sounds so. Maybe check the manufacturer's website (if you can figure out who that is)? I looked at a few and most seem to be using 14/23, 19/26 and
29/32 in Europe, though many don't specify the length of the joint. Might be different where you live.
|
|
|
S.C. Wack
bibliomaster
Posts: 2419
Registered: 7-5-2004
Location: Cornworld, Central USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enhanced
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by earpain  | There does not appear to be a central standards committee for cannabis smoking/vaping/atomizing ground glass taper.
Though most claim it will always be one of three, and the largest is '18mm'. Which is what my ruler is measuring the ID of the largest end of the
female connectors to be.
If I wanted to order compatible joints with this cannabis standard, would 19/22 be the likely culprit? |
Are you asking if the joints on bongs sold online in 19 mm size are 22 mm long, or have rogue bong enthusiast glassblowers invented a whole new thing
like 19/18 or 19/24 instead of using standard parts? Bongware and labware are interchangeable.
|
|
|
earpain
Hazard to Others
Posts: 102
Registered: 11-9-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by S.C. Wack | | Quote: Originally posted by earpain | There does not appear to be a central standards committee for cannabis smoking/vaping/atomizing ground glass taper.
Though most claim it will always be one of three, and the largest is '18mm'. Which is what my ruler is measuring the ID of the largest end of the
female connectors to be.
If I wanted to order compatible joints with this cannabis standard, would 19/22 be the likely culprit? |
Are you asking if the joints on bongs sold online in 19 mm size are 22 mm long, or have rogue bong enthusiast glassblowers invented a whole new thing
like 19/18 or 19/24 instead of using standard parts? Bongware and labware are interchangeable.
|
Well yes just backwards. I discovered by shear chance that the two were interchangeable. And was asking if anyone had similar experience or more
detail about it.
I'm in the US and there are stores everywhere with tons of glass devices. The experts all claim no awareness of a second number(the length of the
joint) And this thread helped me better understand why that doesn't matter anyway. And even the 18mm vs 19 mm discrepancy still allows for a vacuum
tight seal .
|
|
|
SWIM
National Hazard
Posts: 970
Registered: 3-9-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
A 19/22 probably has only 12 mm of contact length with an 18 mm.
19/26, 18.8/26, and 19/38 joints should all have longer contact areas with the 18 mm joint.
Like 16, 18, and 28 mm.
18.8/26? yes, there is such a thing. I can't explain why it exists, but it does.
I think precision glass made it. Whoever did I got some so I can attest to their existence.
Anyway, these longer contact patches might be nice for high vacuum applications.
|
|
|
earpain
Hazard to Others
Posts: 102
Registered: 11-9-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by SWIM | A 19/22 probably has only 12 mm of contact length with an 18 mm.
19/26, 18.8/26, and 19/38 joints should all have longer contact areas with the 18 mm joint.
Like 16, 18, and 28 mm.
18.8/26? yes, there is such a thing. I can't explain why it exists, but it does.
I think precision glass made it. Whoever did I got some so I can attest to their existence.
Anyway, these longer contact patches might be nice for high vacuum applications. |
hmm, well you have got my gears turning now.
So both of the pics i attached, were intended to be high resolution close ups of this joining, and to be reasonable, that water addition neck had to
have been a 19/22. So both of those pics are a male 19/22, forming a vacuum tight seal inside of a 18mm by X(where x is extrapolated by the same
proportion ratio, though indeed, it doesnt really matter if its a bit longer or shorter)
So if the male stopper were 18mm and the female neck were 19mm, this joining wouldn't be possible. For the male side, anything that has a 19mm
diameter section of glass, must thus also have an 18mm, and a 17mm, etc.
But for the female this statement would have to be inverted to apply to the absence of glass, not the presence of it.
Takes me back to math class. Linear functions, or just lines, always have a value m, aka the slope, aka the derivative. If all sloped are the
same, the only variation that remains is the Y intercept, yes?
I guess I could imagine up a few lines of code that should be able to predict all possible ground glass joint connections.
Plus the diamond mill devices were probably already sitting and ready to grind after making batches of 19/22 necks all day, and the bong guild just
used the cutter that was still out on the bench. They could have called it 17mm, 16, wouldnt matter.
Last thing:
In response to the 2007 pondering of how the short versions became a thing?
Sure, going in deeper may make a better vacuum seal. But it would also:
a. Signiicantly increase the chances of a joint seizing during thermal changes when using the glassware, not to mention chemical ones
b. once a joint does seize, a longer/deeper mating would only make it that much harder to unseize the joint.
This is all conjecture of course.
edit: the first picture is scientific male <-> marijuana female. The second pic, with the mysterious orange glycerine condenser, is simply
marijuana male <-> marijuana female. They both slip, and lock, and turn, and slide with precisely the same evenness. And I think you're saying
there is an 18.8 because it's a taper. Every size circle possible, within the range, is occurring . Maybe there's some quantum physics limitation
to that, that's beyond me.
Probably more true for glass than most other materials.
A=πr(r+sqrt[h2+r2]) where r is the radius of a cone and h is it's height, A is the surface area
[Edited on 16-4-2020 by earpain]
|
|
|
Dr.Bob
International Hazard
Posts: 2732
Registered: 26-1-2011
Location: USA - NC
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Who cares what standards we use, the glassware I have seen is ALL interchangable. As stated, the longer joints fit into the shorter tapers on every
piece I have ever seen, and the shorter ones fit into the longer joints just fine, in all but 1% if the cases (a few pieces taper at the joint, but
that is a bad design). I have a few odd adapters that are 24/29 and other Euro sizes, but most are either all long or all short. If you find a
long joint adapter, you can always have it cut to a short one with a diamond saw, I have had glass cut before, and it is not that difficult to do.
But you cannot fire polish the ends once cut unless you regrind the joint. if anyone wants mixed adapters, let em knwo and I will look out for
them. I have some 14/22 to 24/40 adpaters for sure, and some 19/38 to various sizes as well. No big deal either way, again they all are the same
taper.
|
|
|
earpain
Hazard to Others
Posts: 102
Registered: 11-9-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Dr.Bob | | Who cares what standards we use, the glassware I have seen is ALL interchangable. As stated, the longer joints fit into the shorter tapers on every
piece I have ever seen, and the shorter ones fit into the longer joints just fine, in all but 1% if the cases (a few pieces taper at the joint, but
that is a bad design). I have a few odd adapters that are 24/29 and other Euro sizes, but most are either all long or all short. If you find a
long joint adapter, you can always have it cut to a short one with a diamond saw, I have had glass cut before, and it is not that difficult to do.
But you cannot fire polish the ends once cut unless you regrind the joint. if anyone wants mixed adapters, let em knwo and I will look out for
them. I have some 14/22 to 24/40 adapters for sure, and some 19/38 to various sizes as well. No big deal either way, again they all are the same
taper. |
Dr. Bob thank you. I do love my diamond grinding wheels, and enough flame work skill/equipment to make occasional adjustments. I sure woulld love to
obtain whatever is used to final diamond shaping of the various ground joints. Even the B2B glass suppliers sell premade ground glass tube ends, but
not that piece.
Anyhow, when you say "it doesn't matter, they're all the same taper" does this apply to 14/20 <-> 19/22 as well? Forgive such ignorance, i'm
about to make an order, perhaps I should send a U2U after this.
By the way, I also have always been very reluctant to do anything with flame after cutting anything ground glass joint related. But the sharp edges
can simply be 'diamond polished'. or an entire 24/40 joint, from personal experience, can be heated over an air carbureted propane torch and the piece
will work fine for joining. Propane simply won't provide enough heat to warp the glass
|
|
|
Dr.Bob
International Hazard
Posts: 2732
Registered: 26-1-2011
Location: USA - NC
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
No, a 14/20 won't fit within a 19/38 joint, even at the bottom, and a 19/38 is too big to fit into a 14/20 joint, even at the top. I think they
made it that way on purpose, even though the taper is the same, so you can't try to use the wrong sizes together. But you can mix short, normal or
long joints of the same first number. (Is that the diastolic or systolic joint number?)
BTW, if anyone wants any premade joints, I have lots of them, in 14/20 and 24/40, plus lots of stopcocks and other glassblowing parts and pieces. I
know a few people here have done some glassblowing.
|
|
|
Refinery
Hazard to Others
Posts: 371
Registered: 17-2-2014
Member Is Offline
Mood: Still
|
|
The fact that I started my glassware collection with 29/32(29/42) joints is making me mad seeing basically all glassware on ebay for half the price at
24/29(24/40) joints. I finally decided to cut the act and get half a dozen of reducers and expansers to be able to interchange the glassware. My bad I
already have mostly everything acquired.
|
|
|
Dr.Bob
International Hazard
Posts: 2732
Registered: 26-1-2011
Location: USA - NC
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I have tons of 29/42 glassware, and sell it at the same price as the 24/40, sometimes even a discount. There are only a few items that I don't have,
but I have scads of it. So don't feel bad, it is great for larger distillations and reactions. Good luck.
I also might have a few adapters as well, but running out of some sizes.
|
|
|
Sulaiman
International Hazard
Posts: 3692
Registered: 8-2-2015
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Refinery | | The fact that I started my glassware collection with 29/32(29/42) joints is making me mad seeing basically all glassware on ebay for half the price at
24/29(24/40) joints. I finally decided to cut the act and get half a dozen of reducers and expansers to be able to interchange the glassware. My bad I
already have mostly everything acquired. |
If you have a working still in 29/32 for solvents, water etc. that is useful for higher volumes,
I have not looked carefully but 19/26 might be a good choice (given that you have the29/32 still)
Most experiments do not need to be done at 24/29 or 29/32 scale,
Operating at 19/26 scale would save on space, chemicals, waste etc.
(I use mostly 24/29, I have quite a bit of 10/19 glassware that rarely gets used)
CAUTION : Hobby Chemist, not Professional or even Amateur
|
|
|
Eddie Current
Hazard to Self
Posts: 78
Registered: 25-7-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
What are peoples opinions on the maximum volumes that should accompany particular glass sizes?
Example: 14/20 & 14/23 = 500ml, 19/22 = 1000ml, etc.
|
|
|
RedDwarf
Hazard to Others
Posts: 166
Registered: 16-2-2019
Location: UK (North West)
Member Is Offline
Mood: Variable
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Dr.Bob |
BTW, if anyone wants any premade joints, I have lots of them, in 14/20 and 24/40, plus lots of stopcocks and other glassblowing parts and pieces. I
know a few people here have done some glassblowing. |
I know you don't generally ship to the UK, but out of interest what would you charge (ignoring shipping) for premade joints, stopcocks etc?
|
|
|
Dr.Bob
International Hazard
Posts: 2732
Registered: 26-1-2011
Location: USA - NC
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Eddie Current | What are peoples opinions on the maximum volumes that should accompany particular glass sizes?
Example: 14/20 & 14/23 = 500ml, 19/22 = 1000ml, etc. |
The largest flask in 14/20 I have ever seen is 500 ml, although I think they sell 1000 ml ones, but 250 ml is the most practical large scale I would
do in a 14/20. And for distillations, the neck restricks the flow a huge amount.
For 24/40, I have gone up to 5L, and down to 50 ml, but I find that 100 to 2000 ml is the most reasonable range for 24/40.
The 29/42 flasks go up to 12 L, and down to 100 ml, but I mostly use them for 1L and up, but they are not that much larger than 24/40, so not a big
difference. Easier to fit large stirbars through the joint, for sure. You can distill at a fast rate from this size.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
