Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Storage codes for different types of chemicals #77

Open
canismarko opened this issue Nov 19, 2015 · 3 comments
Open

Storage codes for different types of chemicals #77

canismarko opened this issue Nov 19, 2015 · 3 comments

Comments

@canismarko
Copy link
Owner

I had a chance to look at Stanford's chemical inventory at SSRL and they have an additional field for storage category (general, flammable, oxidizer, etc.) and the secondary containers are labeled. Is this something we want to consider borrowing? Maybe good for a group meeting discussion.

@canismarko canismarko added this to the release/1.1 milestone Nov 19, 2015
@michaelplews
Copy link
Collaborator

You mean as an indicator of what can be stored with what? Compatibility of sorts?

On 19 Nov 2015, at 12:55, Mark Wolf [email protected] wrote:

I had a chance to look at Stanford's chemical inventory at SSRL and they have an additional field for storage category (general, flammable, oxidizer, etc.) and the secondary containers are labeled. Is this something we want to consider borrowing? Maybe good for a group meeting discussion.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

@canismarko
Copy link
Owner Author

Yeah pretty much: http://www-ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/splab/chemicals

On 2015-11-19 11:52, michaelplews wrote:

You mean as an indicator of what can be stored with what?
Compatibility of sorts?

On 19 Nov 2015, at 12:55, Mark Wolf [email protected] wrote:

I had a chance to look at Stanford's chemical inventory at SSRL and
they have an additional field for storage category (general,
flammable, oxidizer, etc.) and the secondary containers are labeled.
Is this something we want to consider borrowing? Maybe good for a
group meeting discussion.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#77 (comment).

@michaelplews
Copy link
Collaborator

I like it. As long as it's not too complicated for our users to understand.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants