nannah
Hazard to Others
Posts: 136
Registered: 20-12-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Can some glassware equipment be substituted like this
I was looking for ways to make a addition funnel, and i found this, check it out.
http://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/equipment/si...
I am thinking that it is probably better to use a "real" addition funnel, but i can´t see the reason to why this won´t work.
Do anybody have some experience working with these?
|
|
|
Funkerman23
Hazard to Others
Posts: 416
Registered: 4-1-2012
Location: Dixie
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
the dubiousness of the source aside, it's.. well its an available option . Doing this is possible but every time a joint is present there's a chance
for leaks and problems. FOr Non critical work I'd guess this'd work OK. heck, I myself considered using that source for vacuum Fractional distillation
of lubricating oils. But at the end of the day all I can really say is proceed with caution if you choose do try these, and mind the chemical
properties of the tubing you use!! Better and brighter will be along shortly but the above is my take on it.
" the Modern Chemist is inundated with literature"-Unknown
|
|
|
Dr.Bob
International Hazard
Posts: 2734
Registered: 26-1-2011
Location: USA - NC
Member Is Online
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The funny part is that for the cost of all of the small pieces, you can buy a used addition funnel. But that would certainly work in most cases.
There are other simple solutions that also work, like just putting a slightly inflated balloon on the top of a simple addition funnel to keep it
under inert gas. But their Dean Stark thing will leak like a seize, if the joints are upside down. The simplest way to save money is to buy
smaller scale glassware like 14/20, and keep experiments small.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
