Talk:Pipette

message: In the section discussing positive displacement pipettes, the term "pipettor" is used twice.  While a common industry term, I do not believe "pipettor" is an actual word at all.  Are colloquialisms acceptable article language? HemlockBrock
Doesn't the picture show what are technically micropipettes rather than pipettes? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pipettor

message: It is accurate to call them both pipettes. The larger one is a macropipette and the smaller one is a micropipette. Both are pipettes so the description is accurate. I will edit the page to point out this distinction.
I added the above-mentioned change, and added some additional accuracy-granted changes. I wrote the article.
As per the top comment regarding the word "pipettor". You are correct, it is not a 'real' word. It is thought to have been created by Richard Vaughton, MD of Biohit Limited as a way of describing electronic pipettors to differentiate them from mechanical pipettes.
Is there a reference to this etymology?  At any rate, the word "pipette" seems to have an etymology going back to the mid-19th century. "Pipettor" should be described as a common synonym for pipette.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.139.35.250 (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pipette vs. Micropipette 

message: The transfer pipette link redirects to the pasteur pipette article - are they one and the same? If so, there shouldn't be two links.
Just a note that 	
* The Use of Pipets
was removed due to the link not being publicly available anymore.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmwade (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: Is it pronounced pipe-ette or is it pip-ette?
  The Wiki-dictionary link shows it as 'pai'-'pet', which agrees with
my personal work experience.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.139.35.250 (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Oxford English Dictionary gives two pronunciations: one which looks more or less pipe-ette which is labeled as U.S., and one which looks like pip-ette which is labeled Brit. --Itub (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation 

message: Still requires a picture of a glass pipette, and more emphasis there since the autopipette is based on this. I will remove some of the pictures because it seems like a catalog than an article. --Rifleman 82 17:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: Is it just me or does anyone find the pipettes picture to be very cluttered?  I think all of the types of pipettes are worthy of inclusion in the article, but the way they are organized in the picture seems too crowded and obscures some of the pipettes.  Can we go to pictures of individual types of pipettes (micro-, multi-channel, electric)?  Or maybe lay everything flat on a table and take a picture?  Biomedeng 00:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  selection of pipettes picture 

message: In the description of different pipettes (Volumetric, Graduated etc.) reference is made to "Eppendorf" pipettes. Eppendorf do indeed make a selection of the type of pipette described, but that's just a brand, not an actual type. Eppendorfs aren't even the most common or most likely to become genericized, Gilsons are almost synonymous with this type of pipette. I'm replacing the reference to Eppendorf with the actual type of pipette being described. 82.10.70.8 (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Google says: "Gilson pipettes" = 242.000 hits, "Eppendorf pipettes" = 1.660.000 hits. Could be regional preferences.92.194.125.155 (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Eppendorf" Pipettes 

message: as a scientist who uses pipettes on an hourly basis, and as someone who has worked for companies that make them, just a quick scan turns up some errors, eg
"Piston-driven air displacement pipettes
Single-Channel Pipettes designed to handle 1-5ml and 100-1000µl with locking system
Main article: Air displacement pipette
These pipettes are the most precise and accurate type of pipette"
is simply wrong, it is well known in the indutry that air displacement pipets ar less accurate, paritcularly for viscous liquids, then pos displacement pipets. (i know, my spelling sucks).
and the two sections below read like badly copied marketing lit; heat from your hand is a minor, minor factor, and I have never seen anyone train themselves to use ambidexterous pipettting and electronic ones are heavy - they are more tiring sometimes then manual ones, and a lot more exspensve, and paradoxically, often harder to use 
Cinnamon colbert (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed the formatting above for readability. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your comments.  I don't think many people are watchlisting this article; you're welcome to be bold and make whatever improvements you can.  Don't worry about spelling or the like – if you can provide accurate information, myself or another contributor can make any necessary copyedits.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: terrible article

message: Regarding the Mohr and serological pipettes, I believe the difference is not a 0 mark but a mark for the final volume of the pipette. They both start at 0, but the Mohr pipette has graduations from 0 to let's say 10ml, with dead space after that. The corresponding serological pipette would have graduations from 0 to 9 point something, and the tip volume is included to make up difference for 10ml. Silverpeakwines (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graduated Pipettes 

message: Who invented the eyedropper/pipette? When? Thanks -- Jo3sampl (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History? 

message: Everything about the Andrew Alliance robot on all of Wikipedia appears to be added by their marketing department. It doesn't seem to be anthropomorphic - though captioned as such, and it is not the first and far from the most common type of liquid handling robot. Yet a link to their home page and an oddly captioned picture of their product seems to be the representative image and reference on this and other pages.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.126.98 (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Alliance? 

message: This reads like a how-to book.  It may also be a copyright infringement.  I don't believe that it has a place in the article.JSR (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posture and Injuries 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Wikipedia currently claims that P1000 has a range of 200–1000. However had, if you search for P1000, many vendors state that it has a range of 100-1000, which is actually also my experience too. It may be that it is recommended to not use it in the range of 100-200, that may be; but I believe even then the table is wrong at wikipedia. It should state 100-1000 rather than 200, IMO. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:8920:7EEB:D50A:6466 (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The P1000 pipette 

message: Mouth pipetting is an outdated technique that was used in many Western countries prior to the invention of the modern pipette. I was trying to look up when the transition from mouth pipetting to more modern alternatives occurred in the United States, and I was disappointed to find no mention of the obsolete (and, as you can imagine, very dangerous) practice, at all. I have never created a full article section before (I mostly just do grammatical edits), so I would be very grateful if someone coordinated with me to help add this very real and very gross part of pipetting history to this article.   Emilyofjane (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add mouth pipetting to history section 

message: The article currently has this:
"Air displacement micropipettes are a type of adjustable micropipette that deliver a measured volume of liquid; depending on size, it could be between about 0.1 µl to 1,000 µl (1 ml)."
However had, in the table below that part, it does not mention the 0.1 µl. Yet I think at the least the small micropipette may be able to use that amount. Either way which is correct, could someone re-think this through? Perhaps the table itself can be made a bit more accurate, e. g. a range of solid accuracy and then a range of possibilities or something like this. 2A02:8388:1643:D680:886D:AF5:AD33:A4E2 (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that table's been bugging me for a bit now. I've removed it for now, but if anyone wants to put one back in we should really skip the color column since that's more brand specific than anything else CambrianCrab (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy of the micropipettes