if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
#test-results 2026-04-15
Wednesday13 messages3 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- night_pin — i told MKM about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due 22:46
- HPLC_Hank — while im here a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by, not advice obviously 22:51
- HPLC_Hank — follow up my sheet has 2 lots from GL Biochem with a spread under a point, which is tight, thats one data point 22:55
while im here sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
log the lot number
posting my Janoshik result on lot D-0718, what do people make of it
i told MKM about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
[edited]99.2 against a certificate of 97.4 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
while im here a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by, not advice obviously
peptidemeter-summary-e-2205.pdf
2 pages · 299 KB · not retained in the public archive
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
follow up my sheet has 2 lots from GL Biochem with a spread under a point, which is tight, thats one data point
🙏14✅12
selection bias
coming back after 17 months with a follow up result, where do i put it