my sheet has 4 lots from BCH with a spread under a point, which is tight
📉6
#test-results 2026-03-07
Saturday40 messages7 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- still_here_2024 — my sheet has 4 lots from BCH with a spread under a point, which is tight 15:17
- assay_not_purity — is anyone tracking results over time in a way they would share 15:30
- assay_not_purity — coming back to this one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally 16:41
- meal_prep_mick — a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier 19:18
is anyone tracking results over time in a way they would share
😂9🤝1
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure, not advice obviously
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
🧪1🙏1
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
update on the earlier thing a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
i told Homopeptide about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
anyone had a result they think was a lab error rather than a bad vial
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier
anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs
weights-monthly.csv
700 rows · not retained in the public archive
posting my VendorInvestigate result on lot F-1330, what do people make of it
coming back to this one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
🎉18
coming back to this is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled
thats a fill problem
how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
nice result
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
*Janoshik not the other one
follow up quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
which lab
whats the underfill rate people are actually seeing
99.2 against a certificate of 97.4 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
sorry to jump in has a supplier ever disputed a result posted here
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
my result contradicts the supplier certificate, do i tell them
my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
🧊14📉8💀9
one data point
attach the pdf
thats within range
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