stalled for 9 weeks at 10mg and I refuse to panic this time
water content. That is the whole post, but I will justify it.
Everything else people worry about in c/darkspot is downstream of it. Titration speed, early fullness, the endless dose arguments — most of it resolves if you sort water content out first, and almost nobody does.
I say this having got it wrong for 18 months. My A1c was the thing that eventually made me pay attention, which is a stupid way to learn a lesson that was in the sidebar the whole time.
best — the order this archive was captured in
no "is this good?" without saying what the compound and claimed purity are
Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the same document.
no "is this good?" without saying what the compound and claimed purity are
no "is this good?" without saying what the compound and claimed purity are
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
the related substances line is where the story is
the related substances line is where the story is
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 10 weeks to accept.
Tracking number removed. It identifies both ends of a shipment.
Water content on the document? That affects your concentration math.
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
Cosigning. The batch number is load-bearing information.
redact your own name, not the vendor's batch details
Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the same document.
The COA I was holding said 96.8% area and I thought it was trash. Turns out the method was solid and the impurity profile was clean.
Three years on this site and the questions have not changed at all. Which is depressing or reassuring depending on the day.
- 1no "is this good?" without saying what the compound and claimed purity are10 comments in this branch · started by u/zaid_balogun