[Discussion] we are measuring purity at the wrong time and calling it noise
Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles.
The claim: certificate of analysis matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both sides have been asserting it confidently for about 15 months without either producing anything.
What would actually settle it is 25 people measuring the same thing the same way. I have started; my numbers are below. They lean one way but not strongly enough for me to declare victory.
If you have data, post the data. If you have an opinion, flair it as an opinion.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Yeah, 96.8% area is not the problem, the missing impurity breakdown is the problem.
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.
[removed by moderator]
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.
post the whole document, not the headline number
post the whole document, not the headline number
Adding to this: related substances is doing more work than the comment implies.
Metadata check caught a COA that was created in a browser four months after the analysis date. Not evidence of fraud, but worth flagging to MKM.
- 1Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.6 comments in this branch · started by u/yannick_haddad