assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem, take that with a pinch of salt
#test-results 2024-08-26
Monday21 messages6 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- luerlok — i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells… 03:53
- blank_run — for the archive i told BCH about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due 04:51
- VialBot — Assay note: SSA lot B-0329 reported at 98.6% of label content. 05:13
nice result
test it again
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
genuine question how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
coming back after 7 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
thats a fill problem
my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
when did you buy it
is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled
quick one what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern
update from 13 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
whats the lot
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached, thats one data point
📉1
for the archive i told BCH about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
Assay note: SSA lot B-0329 reported at 98.6% of label content.
do the results in this channel skew because people test when suspicious
selection bias