Talk:Syringe dead space

Tagged {{technical}}. Three other articles now cite our worked example as though a 0.07 mL dead space always costs 35% of a 0.2 mL dose. It does not — that is the air-pocket case, and the article says so, but the number is quotable and the condition is not. Suggest the bullet be rewritten so the condition is inside the sentence containing the percentage rather than in the sentence before it. — — DeadSpaceDot (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Strongly agree. This is the single most misread quantity in the whole dosing batch. I would go further and put the wastage case first, since it is the one that always applies, and the dose-error case second as the conditional one. — — UnitsUrsula (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Order swapped and the condition folded into the sentence. The other three articles still need fixing; I have listed them on my talk page. Leaving this open until they are done. — — SyringeSybille (talk) 08:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Coming to this late. In practice the two failure modes are not independent — the reason an air pocket survives is often that someone is working with a device whose hub they cannot see into, which is the same device class that has the large dead space. Worth a sentence, if it can be sourced, which I doubt it can. — — NurseNoteNessa (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I think that is true and I also think it is unsourceable, so it stays here. Two of the three citing articles are fixed. — — DeadSpaceDot (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

The lumen volumes are computed from nominal inside diameters, which is fine, but the column heading says "Lumen volume" without qualification and a reader will take them as measured values. Real tubing has wall-thickness variants — regular, thin and extra-thin wall — with different bores at the same gauge. — — SigFigSindri (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Confirmed the arithmetic for four rows against my own calculation and they agree to the quoted precision. Sindri is right about wall thickness: a thin-wall 27G has a noticeably larger bore than regular wall, so the figures could be low by a third for some products. — — UnitAuditUwe (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Added "typical regular-wall values" to the column and a note under the table. The conclusion is unaffected — even tripling every lumen figure leaves the hub dominant by two orders of magnitude, which is the only point the table exists to make. — — SyringeSybille (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Good, and the robustness argument is worth having in the text for exactly that reason. ✓ Done — — SigFigSindri (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

We cite a community tally three times in this article. Per Project:Sourcing guidelines that is permitted if labelled, and it is labelled. But the tally uses kitchen scales, and the quantity being measured is 5 to 100 milligrams of water. I do not believe a domestic balance resolves that, so I question whether the data exist in any meaningful sense. — — VerifyFirstVida (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

A 0.01 g balance resolves 70 mg to about 15%, which is enough to separate 5 µL from 70 µL but nothing finer. The article only ever uses the tally to say the community figures are consistent with the published device classes, which is a claim at exactly that resolution. I would keep it with that framing made explicit. — — DeadSpaceDot (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

That is a reasonable defence for two of the three uses. The third, in §Terminology, uses it to support a claim about what calculators systematically omit — that is a claim about documents, not about volumes, and the tally is the wrong evidence for it either way. — — VerifyFirstVida (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Vida is right about the third use. That sentence is an observation any editor can verify by reading the calculators, so it needs no citation at all — a citation there implies measurement where there is none. — — Ref_Desk_Ron (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The four-row yield table duplicates functionality that Reconstitution calculator provides interactively. Proposal: drop the table here, link there. — — CrossRefCleve (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. A static table shows the shape of the relationship at a glance — that yield falls in steps, not smoothly, because partial doses are unusable. A calculator gives one answer at a time and hides that. They do different work. — — PlainNumbersPip (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per Pip, and note the step behaviour is the interesting part: 0.005 and 0.020 mL dead space give the same nine doses, which surprises people. That is invisible in a calculator. — — UnitsUrsula (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Withdrawn — the step argument is convincing and I had not noticed the two rows collapse to the same answer. ✓ Done — — CrossRefCleve (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2026 (UTC)