MESO-Rx Sponsor Genuine Steroid Powder Manufacturer-AASraw

[Thorshammer]

if you want to know if it has 90% purity or lower you gotta go the jano route.

TLC is also possible (not great), but melting point is almost useless for that.

I had 2 batches of Test D, one 89% one 95%. both of them melted within a half degree C of the melting point.
-> melting point test is useless in this case

on TLC, the 89% one just had a slightly more washed out line compared to the 95% one. Also not great for determining purity.

Both powder were a clean, nice smelling fine white powder. So both of your "testing methods" as well as the standtard look & smell test can never be enough to be confident in the quality of product.

MP is a great tool for purity assessment and your supposed to log start of melt to completion of melt and record the difference. Testosterone decanoate is a extremely poor candidate for MP as the melting point is too low . I also used UV VIS spectroscopy

 

[IndividualMan]

MP is a great tool for purity assessment and your supposed to log start of melt to completion of melt and record the difference. Testosterone decanoate is a extremely poor candidate for MP as the melting point is too low . I also used UV VIS spectroscopy

that is EXACTLY what I am saying.
It is a poor way to measure compound purity, and gives you little to no info on most compounds commonly used/liked by most people around me.

 

[Thorshammer]

if you want to know if it has 90% purity or lower you gotta go the jano route.

TLC is also possible (not great), but melting point is almost useless for that.

I had 2 batches of Test D, one 89% one 95%. both of them melted within a half degree C of the melting point.
-> melting point test is useless in this case

on TLC, the 89% one just had a slightly more washed out line compared to the 95% one. Also not great for determining purity.

Both powder were a clean, nice smelling fine white powder. So both of your "testing methods" as well as the standtard look & smell test can never be enough to be confident in the quality of product.

Those tests both work really well as preindicators if you actually know what your doing and how to read them. Why your suggesting jano over analiza is what im curious about . Ive only been met with group think comments not basis for one being superior because that I would love to hear . How do we know janos 89 was correct or is that just the board favorite so it automatically means the other was wrong . 89 is extremely low also thats 11% contamination and would cause visible change in the product if viewed under a microscope yes I do that also to check thr crystals appearance and look for particulates that should be present.

that is EXACTLY what I am saying.
It is a poor way to measure compound purity, and gives you little to no info on most compounds commonly used/liked by most people around me.

It works great for anything with a MP above 75°C anything below thats melts around or slightly above ambient temperature it sucks for . But anyone that truly understands what there doing would have never even used it for test D . And you said within half a degree of the MP the MP is usually a range but what your looking for in a purity test is the length of time from the start of melt till its a complete liquid . They will all melt in that range the duration is the important factor. Your faded line in TLC doesn't say much either what were your RF measurements. Thats why you use a wide range of tools for analysis.

 

[IndividualMan]

Those tests both work really well as preindicators if you actually know what your doing and how to read them. Why your suggesting jano over analiza is what im curious about . Ive only been met with group think comments not basis for one being superior because that I would love to hear . How do we know janos 89 was correct or is that just the board favorite so it automatically means the other was wrong . 89 is extremely low also thats 11% contamination and would cause visible change in the product if viewed under a microscope yes I do that also to check thr crystals appearance and look for particulates that should be present.

It works great for anything with a MP above 75°C anything below thats melts around or slightly above ambient temperature it sucks for . But anyone that truly understands what there doing would have never even used it for test D . And you said within half a degree of the MP the MP is usually a range but what your looking for in a purity test is the length of time from the start of melt till its a complete liquid . They will all melt in that range the duration is the important factor. Your faded line in TLC doesn't say much either what were your RF measurements. Thats why you use a wide range of tools for analysis.

I prefer the ones who use superior testing equipment, proper reference materials and has properly calibrated equipment is the testing lab i prefer.
So either 1. Jano
or 2. my local Uni (if i need it quickly/cheaper) or if i want to recheck.
Jano and Uni are usually similar, while AB ALWAYS returns higher purity than my two go-to options. (Test base from QSC, which sent in, had 96 at my uni, 95 at jano, and the absolute maximum at AB, if I recall correctly. I have also seen some reports from friends regarding verifiably shit <92% raws coming back as acceptable >96% from AB)


89% purity is shit, I agree, but sadly common in the current market. (or for cumpounds like tren base, BU, MENT E and D, etc.)

MP, as you said, should always be around the same, with the only differences being the speed at which the compound melts. Great, but in what world do I care about the specifics if i can simply send it off for testing? (after MP test)
it will never be as assuring as running GCMS or a HPLC on it.

for TLC, I geniunely do not think I could find proper, satisfactory reference materials for Test D at a reasonably price. and proper reference materials are everything when it comes to TLC

Plus, a washed line definitely says somethingIf it looks like a texan highway (one compound should not move at different speeds along the same line, if you do it right you should have ONE DOT, not multiple dots/a smear on a line), I do not believe the compound to be high in purity.

ALL that being said, TLC is a qualitative method, not a quantitative one. It is useful for determining a compound, but MP tests are more useful for that purpose.
TLC is NOT GREAT FOR DETERMINING PURITY. like, at all. It only throws warning signs when you have absolutely piss poor product. which a MP test for confirmation of compound and a subsequent standard raws test at jano would also do. Doing MP (+jano if compound is acceptable in regards to melting speed etc.) is far cheaper and a lower time investment than doing TLC. also avoids stinking up your lab with ea and aa or other solvents.

RF was .4something., while the reference material was around .5 (iirc) (via Sigma aldrich) was a much clearer dot, without streaks/ no breaking up.

Anyways, you seem to know quite a bit, and the idea of actually looking at the product through a microscope is fun. I will incorporate that once I get some more stuff in. Other than that, I still believe in Labs with proper Equipment and reference material and calibration of said equipment over whatever it is AB is doing for raws testing.

 

[Thorshammer]

I prefer the ones who use superior testing equipment, proper reference materials and has properly calibrated equipment is the testing lab i prefer.
So either 1. Jano
or 2. my local Uni (if i need it quickly/cheaper) or if i want to recheck.
Jano and Uni are usually similar, while AB ALWAYS returns higher purity than my two go-to options. (Test base from QSC, which sent in, had 96 at my uni, 95 at jano, and the absolute maximum at AB, if I recall correctly. I have also seen some reports from friends regarding verifiably shit <92% raws coming back as acceptable >96% from AB)


89% purity is shit, I agree, but sadly common in the current market. (or for cumpounds like tren base, BU, MENT E and D, etc.)

MP, as you said, should always be around the same, with the only differences being the speed at which the compound melts. Great, but in what world do I care about the specifics if i can simply send it off for testing? (after MP test)
it will never be as assuring as running GCMS or a HPLC on it.

for TLC, I geniunely do not think I could find proper, satisfactory reference materials for Test D at a reasonably price. and proper reference materials are everything when it comes to TLC

Plus, a washed line definitely says somethingIf it looks like a texan highway (one compound should not move at different speeds along the same line, if you do it right you should have ONE DOT, not multiple dots/a smear on a line), I do not believe the compound to be high in purity.

ALL that being said, TLC is a qualitative method, not a quantitative one. It is useful for determining a compound, but MP tests are more useful for that purpose.
TLC is NOT GREAT FOR DETERMINING PURITY. like, at all. It only throws warning signs when you have absolutely piss poor product. which a MP test for confirmation of compound and a subsequent standard raws test at jano would also do. Doing MP (+jano if compound is acceptable in regards to melting speed etc.) is far cheaper and a lower time investment than doing TLC. also avoids stinking up your lab with ea and aa or other solvents.

RF was .4something., while the reference material was around .5 (iirc) (via Sigma aldrich) was a much clearer dot, without streaks/ no breaking up.

Anyways, you seem to know quite a bit, and the idea of actually looking at the product through a microscope is fun. I will incorporate that once I get some more stuff in. Other than that, I still believe in Labs with proper Equipment and reference material and calibration of said equipment over whatever it is AB is doing for raws testing.

Like Ive said several times I use those methods for preliminary tests prior to getting HPLC done . The reason I switched to AB because in the past Jano only sent me a document saying the findings with no methodology or reading weather it be mass spectra or a chromatogram and I wanted all the analytical data on my COAs not a report that basically says trust me bro. I see now some people showing reports with that data from him but it appears he charges extra for that. Kinda should be part of it.

 

[Zebedee]

Like Ive said several times I use those methods for preliminary tests prior to getting HPLC done . The reason I switched to AB because in the past Jano only sent me a document saying the findings with no methodology or reading weather it be mass spectra or a chromatogram and I wanted all the analytical data on my COAs not a report that basically says trust me bro. I see now some people showing reports with that data from him but it appears he charges extra for that. Kinda should be part of it.

Agree & don’t think it’s right that he charges extra for it

 

[IndividualMan]

Like Ive said several times I use those methods for preliminary tests prior to getting HPLC done . The reason I switched to AB because in the past Jano only sent me a document saying the findings with no methodology or reading weather it be mass spectra or a chromatogram and I wanted all the analytical data on my COAs not a report that basically says trust me bro. I see now some people showing reports with that data from him but it appears he charges extra for that. Kinda should be part of it.

its like 5 bucks, come on man.

 

[readalot]

its like 5 bucks, come on man.

Good clarification. 5 bucks with order or 20 bucks after.

 

[IndividualMan]

Good clarification. 5 bucks with order or 20 bucks after.

20 bucks after is just a fu for causing extra administrative troubles due to the customers indecisiveness/uninformedness.

 

[Thorshammer]

20 bucks after is just a fu for causing extra administrative troubles due to the customers indecisiveness/uninformedness.

I was using him way back before the website and was never made aware of options. I went private a decade ago and have been off the boards when I started using AB it was because TP referred me to them.

 

[Photon]

Like Ive said several times I use those methods for preliminary tests prior to getting HPLC done . The reason I switched to AB because in the past Jano only sent me a document saying the findings with no methodology or reading weather it be mass spectra or a chromatogram and I wanted all the analytical data on my COAs not a report that basically says trust me bro. I see now some people showing reports with that data from him but it appears he charges extra for that. Kinda should be part of it.

AB ahas sent me reports that made no sense. Overdosed and underdosed reports, reporting Trest as Test then admitting they don't have a reference sample etc.

But it's 60$ and you pay for what you get.

 

[Thorshammer]

AB ahas sent me reports that made no sense. Overdosed and underdosed reports, reporting Trest as Test then admitting they don't have a reference sample etc.

But it's 60$ and you pay for what you get.

I had assumed the lower cost was due to the extreme low cost of living in Poland. Does Jano offer any deals for high volume large orders I get COAs on every batch of finished products. And I never have a single raw sample tested its always 5 and I average the difference there is margin of error.

 

[Photon]

I had assumed the lower cost was due to the extreme low cost of living in Poland. Does Jano offer any deals for high volume large orders I get COAs on every batch of finished products. And I never have a single raw sample tested its always 5 and I average the difference there is margin of error.

Yes you get discounts when you exceed 1.2k I believe, for that order. Or was it 1.1k? don't remember.

 

[Zebedee]

its like 5 bucks, come on man.

Yeah it’s not a lot of money but I don’t see why it’s not included by default because it’s essentially the only proof that testing was carried out & they didn’t just make up a random number as the result.

 

[Thorshammer]

Yes you get discounts when you exceed 1.2k I believe, for that order. Or was it 1.1k? don't remember.

Does Jano have ICP MS I really want better documentation for heavy metal screenings. Ive been using those mail in kits from Amazon and falsified info claiming they are supplements. But that gives me nothing I can show the customer

 

[Thorshammer]

Yeah it’s not a lot of money but I don’t see why it’s not included by default because it’s essentially the only proof that testing was carried out & they didn’t just make up a random number as the result.

This was my concern as well. Analytical method and findings and how those findings were detected are important. Its standard at any lab. It feels like your being told your to stupid to understand so unnecessary.

 

[Ghoul]

It feels like your being told your to stupid to understand so unnecessary.

You’re too

 

[MrTexas2]

GCMS for my breadcrumbs NPP as I promised. Still waiting for HPLC test.

Was this the first batch?

 

[Photon]

Does Jano have ICP MS I really want better documentation for heavy metal screenings. Ive been using those mail in kits from Amazon and falsified info claiming they are supplements. But that gives me nothing I can show the customer

bottom of post, that's all ur gonna get.
check the raw data on last page of each test.

if what you're looking for it fanciful reports to show customers, this is not where u're gonna get them.

R

Post in thread 'Readalots Enhanced Testing'

Nov 18, 2024

PROJECT 2 coming soon.

Raws HPLC testing, metals, and endotoxins.

Focus was on the raws but we got some finished oil vials and lyophilized GH vial in there as well.

I want to thank @Sampei very much for his collaboration on this project. His contributions to further our body of knowledge as a community is simply incredible. He donated the 9 raws, finished oil vials, and a lyophilized GH vial. He did all the heavy lifting and got the samples to Jano. We went in half on the HPLC testing and I covered the remainder of the tests.

Quote number #xxxxx ...

• readalot

• 
• 

 

[Photon]

Was this the first batch?

different source