is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure
#test-results 2025-08-03
Sunday17 messages5 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- turnaround_tam — my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ 19:40
- vial_ledger — 99.2 against a certificate of 98.6 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is… 19:42
- cold_pack_carla — a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by, i think the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and… 20:10
- assay_not_purity — a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached, someone check my working 20:12
weigh it first
[redacted at member request] · archive policy
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
99.2 against a certificate of 98.6 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
log the boring ones
thats not great
does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by, i think
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached, someone check my working
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
is anyone tracking results over time in a way they would share
when did you buy it
has a supplier ever disputed a result posted here
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia
thats a fill problem
do you test every order or sample it