FDA_TrackerJim said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Reporting back.
For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.
AussieAnna said:For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.
Mine went the same way, slower. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAussieAnna said:For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
One concrete data point for the thread. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.