if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier, ask me again in a month
#test-results 2025-04-04
Friday42 messages9 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- never_for_sale — is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit 13:03
- vial_ledger — underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure 17:15
- vial_ledger — a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by, happy to be corrected 17:16
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
💀1🙏17🤝6
whats the lot
*PeptideMeter not the other one
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
one data point
my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
which lab
nice result
never_for_salethe results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is…
anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs
😂5📈3🧊1
selection bias
✅4
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
❤️3
do you test every order or sample it
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
🧊6🤝7
thats within range
sorry to jump in my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
99.4 against a certificate of 98.6 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1, thats one data point
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
certificate said 98.1 and the independent came back 99.4, is that a problem
🧪4😂1
update from 18 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
my result contradicts the supplier certificate, do i tell them
how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
lot bought purity assay/label
A-2418 2025-03 99.1% 9.6 / 10mg
A-2601 2025-08 98.7% 9.8 / 10mg
B-0114 2026-01 99.3% 9.4 / 10mg
B-0329 2026-04 98.9% 9.9 / 10mgdoes a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier
❤️16
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
my sheet has 7 lots from SSA with a spread under a point, which is tight, from memory
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
🔥1🤝15
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by, happy to be corrected
✅14
thats not great
🔥17
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you, i think
🧊7👍2🤝1
coming back to this test it again, i think
🔥2
has a supplier ever disputed a result posted here
sorry to jump in posting my Janoshik result on lot KP-0925, what do people make of it
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
whats the underfill rate people are actually seeing
*Medutest not the other one