Thanks for going to the trouble of looking it up. It was a good read. Having read it I’m not stressing about it either. I had thought it was some magical way of predicting shelf life outside of the normal variables.
I’m learning again how much there is to know compared to what I do know. It’s fun.
Hi AliOop,Thank you for not being offended! I also try not to take offense and come from the perspective that most people do mean well.
In response to your questions:
1. longevity = palmitic + stearic.
2. Regarding the difference in oil amounts, did you include the 4% superfat in the oil total on your spreadsheet? I’m no mathematician, but that seems to be about the difference that I’m seeing between your oil total and the SMF oil total.
Yes, I wondered that too but I double-checked it and I only included it once (I thought I may have discounted it twice somehow - thus explaining my lower values).
FWIW, I seem to have tracked down the culprit. I’d been playing with the different settings in the online calculator and had selected the button to allow batch resizing when “%” inputs are used. It seems that even when "%” is deselected and “g” is chosen instead the setting is still used. Probably not ideal as the setting can’t be seen or changed unless “%” is chosen again. Anyway, toggling that button seemed to correct the figures. Phew!
That’s the good news. The not so good news is that I incorrectly thought I’d solved the circular reference issue. Sadly I was mistaken and it persists. I have another idea for solving it but it would make using macros necessary. I’m hoping to avoid that as I understand why people might be cautious about installing anything with macros. They can be dangerous to your computer health if they’re from a malicious source.
I’ll look for another way.