[Discussion] the purity advice in here is 9 years out of date
Posting this because I searched for it and got nothing useful.
Setup: 1.7mg, week 52, sulphur burps present but not ruining anything. I changed exactly one variable — COA — and tracked it for 9 weeks.
Result: a difference, but a small one, and well inside what I would call noise if someone else posted it. So I am putting it here rather than presenting it as a finding. If two or three other people have done the same thing we might actually learn something.
Not medical advice, obviously. This is one person with a spreadsheet.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with area percent, not with what you concluded.
no "is this good?" without saying what the compound and claimed purity are
Cosigning. The batch number is load-bearing information.
the related substances line is where the story is
Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the same document.
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
Crossposting this to c/darkspot because the people who need it are not reading this community.
Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the same document.
Strongly agree.
Adding to this: area percent is doing more work than the comment implies.
Asked QSC for the batch-specific COA and they sent it within six hours, full document, batch number, date, everything. That is the baseline.
Cosigning. The batch number is load-bearing information.
This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.
The COA I was holding said 96.8% area and I thought it was trash. Turns out the method was solid and the impurity profile was clean.
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
no "is this good?" without saying what the compound and claimed purity are
The COA I was holding said 96.8% area and I thought it was trash. Turns out the method was solid and the impurity profile was clean.
The COA I was holding said 96.8% area and I thought it was trash.
Adding to this: purity is doing more work than the comment implies.
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
the related substances line is where the story is
Cosigning. The batch number is load-bearing information.
post the whole document, not the headline number
The COA I was holding said 96.8% area and I thought it was trash.
Adding to this: batch is doing more work than the comment implies.
What is the method line say? Not the technique, the actual method.
no "is this good?" without saying what the compound and claimed purity are
Small correction: the trial was 3 weeks, not 24. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
What is the method line say?
Disagree on that part. 98.4% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
- 1The COA I was holding said 96.8% area and I thought it was trash. Turns out…7 comments in this branch · started by u/zeynep_zielinski
- 2source?5 comments in this branch · started by u/cato_achebe