anna.melb_AU said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
anna.melb_AU said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
amsterdam_pete said:Agreed on the target, with the caveat that reference weight and current weight are different numbers.
That reframing is the part I needed. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
anna.melb_AU said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.