i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia, ill dig out the number
#test-results 2026-01-21
Wednesday39 messages7 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- chain_of_custody — is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier 12:18
- ms_ms_mira — 97.4 against a certificate of 99.4 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question 13:58
- monoisotopic — my sheet has 3 lots from GGPeps with a spread under a point, which is tight 16:30
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
🧪3
log the lot number
anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs
is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled
while im here has a supplier ever disputed a result posted here
whats the underfill rate people are actually seeing
thats within range
💀12
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
while im here my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
do you test every order or sample it
97.4 against a certificate of 99.4 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
| Evidence | Counts? |
|---|---|
| Independent report, lot you bought, lot number legible | yes |
| Independent report, no lot number | no |
| Supplier certificate only | no |
| Screenshot of a report | no |
| Blinded pooled submission | yes, for the pool |
| A friend who said it was fine | no |
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
14:01quiet.hours pinned a message to this channel
attach the pdf
selection bias
nice result
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by, ymmv
is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure
whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
certificate said 97.4 and the independent came back 98.1, is that a problem
which lab
how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
slightly off topic but quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
log the boring ones
test it again
🙏1🔥15
Reminder set. I will post here in 7 days.
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind, not advice obviously
whats the lot
coming back to this if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
my result contradicts the supplier certificate, do i tell them
weigh it first
[edited]what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern
coming back after 7 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
my sheet has 3 lots from GGPeps with a spread under a point, which is tight
thats a fill problem