my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
#test-results 2025-07-02
Wednesday18 messages4 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- step_one_sian — a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached 16:53
- gip_glp_gil — 98.6 against a certificate of 99 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question 17:13
- gip_glp_gil — certificate said 96.8 and the independent came back 99, is that a problem 17:15
my sheet has 9 lots from QST with a spread under a point, which is tight
is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
🧪6⚠️10
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
98.6 against a certificate of 99 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
🎉15👀1
follow up whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
certificate said 96.8 and the independent came back 99, is that a problem
🧪11
which lab
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
coa-e-2205.pdf
1 page · 190 KB · not retained in the public archive
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
for the archive the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier, anyway
log the boring ones
one data point
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
do you test every order or sample it
what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern