Talk:Ground glass joint

The stopper joints of chemical bottles, volumetric flasks, and separatory funnels often do not use the precision standard taper joints.

I would certainly question this. Volumetric flasks, in my experience of A-level chemistry, university and having tens of them myself, says they do use ground sockets. The same is true of sep funnels, as it is common for people to swirl the funnel upside down (so the liquid would pour out if it weren't ground well); I usually don't do this myself, given the risk of it ending up on the floor, and instead vent through the cap. And again, for volumetric flasks, when diluting to make a stock solution, they need inverting multiple times to homogenise the solution. Storage bottles, very few ever use ground tapers, only older style bench bottles of things like sulphuric (we still used such bottles at A-level chemistry with a dripper pipette in the cap for sulphuric, I expect so that the students didn't have to pour from the larger bottles). Glass tapers are prone to jamming when left in contact with numerous materials for extended periods of time. A large percentage of them use GL caps. As far as I'm aware ALL of the Schott Duran style borosillicate bottles use GL caps; like GL45. As well as the Winchesters I get things in from the suppliers. The GL cap allows a pump pipette to be screwed onto the top to dispense the reagent without having to pour and measure it as separate operations. Some of these pipettes are mechanical and preset (e.g. 1ml), some are variable, the most expensive are variable digital models.

Stopper joints are designated (if at all) only by the maximum diameter number.[citation needed]

I didn't add any of this, but it is partially correct. I have a stack of volumetric flasks in front of me right now. Some of the joint sizes, for example, are 16/16, 14/15 and 10/13. I tried a B14/23 stopper (the kind normally used on RBF's) in one and it does fit, but the stopper sticks out on the inside a little too far (it's a few mm too long). So they must be the same taper, but different lengths. There are also sizes for volumetric flasks that are not available (at all) from the B's, like C16; for which there is no B16. All of the female joints on volumetric flasks are shorter than the normal B sizes. I have no idea why. Maybe it's a conspiracy to make us buy more stoppers. Or something to do with the tolerances bands or not mixing them up (if that was true, they should have made all volumetric flasks 'odd' sizes compared to normal B's). I think this may also apply for taps on things like funnels, a B14 will not fit in the tap I have here even though they appear to be the same size (the taper is wrong).

Generally, when I've seen stoppers for volumetric flasks, they're just given the name C16 etc. But this is akin to calling B24/29 'B24' since the rest of it rarely matters. I use both US and UK glass, and I've never had a problem fitting the two together despite the different lengths.

US glass tapers are not universally longer. B14/20 from the US is shorter than the UK standard, B14/23; but the tapers are identical and they fit together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.235.181 (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

MERGERS & DISAMBIGUATION

Material split from laboratory glassware which is getting long. --Rifleman 82 21:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That was a bad idea, since we now have two virtually identical copies of each. Length shouldn't define when an article is split if those splits will create redundancy and make it hard to find information.

I was trolling around glassware this afternoon and noticed some serious redundancy between articles. In particular, the ground glass joint article is virtually identical to sections in laboratory glassware. Also, those joints appear no where other than on laboratory glassware, so the two should be merged.

Another concern is that searching 'glassware' doesn't bring up a disambiguation page. It would be better to rename it 'glassware' and have the menu come up when people search for it, which is what I expect most people will use as a search term.

I have also seen numerous articles on different glassware forms. Could we not have a section on the page with all the common forms listed with a simple statement next to each? I realize this will extend the page a fair amount, but it also seems the most sensible in terms of what people would be coming to the glassware article for. If they don't know the name or use of a piece of glass, they're not going to know to search for it in the first place. If you look at things like the round bottom flask article, a lot of that could be said about all the other forms of flask, tube, column, bend, head or beaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.47.178 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Quickfit

Anyone ever heard of Quickfit glass joints? --Alf 07:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

See quickfit apparatus. DMacks 08:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

QuickFit is a trademark owned by SciLabware in the UK. It is the brand name of their glass. It so happens that they began producing a lot of their glass with tapers on it at the start of the 20th century. So the name has gradually fallen into colloquial use to mean tapered. I know a man in his 60's who worked making thermometers in his twenties, he immediately identified my glassware as 'QuickFit'. Most of it is, but the bits he was looking at weren't from them. He must also associate the taper with the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.235.181 (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

ISO vs. US standard taper

Is there anyone familiar with this subject? I failed to properly understand the difference between US and ISO standard taper. Are they both standard taper systems using xx/yy notation to denote diameter and length in mm of the joints? Are ISO 29/42 and US 29/42 identical? --Alf 07:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they do use the same system of xx/yy for diameter and length. They also use the same taper. However there is no such thing as an ISO 29/42 (at least none that I have found). Instead it is 29/32. This is pretty much just a shorter version. They will be compatible, so you can put a US cone into a ISO socket or vice versa, with one exception, if you are using a US cone (42 mm long) in a ISO socket (32mm long) and there isn't enough room after the join to fit the remaining length of the socket. With the glassware I have dealt with I am yet to have this problem.Black.jeff (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ball socket joint, Buchiglasuster equipment.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)