PDF producer string says the file was made in a browser. is that normal
Right, the related substances question again, but with numbers this time.
I have 19 data points over 10 weeks. The pattern is consistent enough that I do not think it is chance, and boring enough that nobody is going to screenshot it, which is usually a good sign.
The thing I would flag for anyone new: the effect I am describing showed up at week 26, not week 75. People give up long before the interesting part.
Interested in whether this matches other people's logs or whether I am an outlier.
best — the order this archive was captured in
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
Removed a chain here. The rule is one line long and it is not negotiable.
the counterion is part of the mass you paid for
Yeah, 96.8% area is not the problem, the missing impurity breakdown is the problem.
Batch number and date of analysis? Both are load-bearing.
no "is this good?" without saying what the compound and claimed purity are
What were the related substances listed individually?
chromatogram or it did not happen
chromatogram or it did not happen
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 16 weeks to accept.
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
Slight fix: the number was 98.7, not 96.8. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the same document.
post the whole document, not the headline number
[deleted]
the counterion is part of the mass you paid for
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with area percent, not with what you concluded.
Sent one vial to PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate. 98.4% and 98.0%. Cost me more than the vial did and I would do it again.
- 1What were the related substances listed individually?9 comments in this branch · started by u/rania_okonkwo