mel_PDX said:Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled.
Same pattern here, and in the same order.
mel_PDX said:Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
One concrete data point for the thread. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne thing that is still open after mel_PDX’s answer:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
HPLC_Greg said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Pushing back on HPLC_Greg here. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.