Gettinbig
Subscriber
Where in the results can I find the results for dosing? The only thing that I find is the conclusion that it's slightly overestimated on the dosage.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Mass Spec Thread
- Thread starter MythotiK
- Start date
I copied this from our conversation, "HPLC (High Performance Liquid Chromatography) is the best suited for that but we can get in the ballpark with it. We will never call it exact, but within 20mg, and the results are always a little vague such as "100mg/ml is sufficient" or "300mg/ml is overstated by two-fold""
I am looing into HPLC so that we can get an exact mg/ml
I am looing into HPLC so that we can get an exact mg/ml
I will see if I can explain this simply.
The dosage being slightly over stated refers to the amount of powder disolved. So its saying the oil has around 80-90% of the stated mg/ml of disolved powder.
Of the powder that is disolved it is only 53% actual tren ace. The rest is fillers and by products.
So on the low side you have 100x.8x.53=42.4mg/ml
High side
100x.9x.53= 47.7mg/ml
Hope yhis explains it better
The dosage being slightly over stated refers to the amount of powder disolved. So its saying the oil has around 80-90% of the stated mg/ml of disolved powder.
Of the powder that is disolved it is only 53% actual tren ace. The rest is fillers and by products.
So on the low side you have 100x.8x.53=42.4mg/ml
High side
100x.9x.53= 47.7mg/ml
Hope yhis explains it better
Mike Oxbig
New Member
Effectively speaking, it doesn't look like Ricky was intentionally fucking people over as he was mixing roughly 1 gram of powder per 10ml of oil. Regardless, he is at fault for failing to confirm the legitimacy of his raws.
So wtf is the other 50% that people have been injecting into there bodies?
Mike Oxbig
New Member
Probably whatever random powder(s) they have on hand that have a similar melting point to trenbolone.
I'm highly curious myself but it doesn't look like we'll ever know...
Well depends if the powder was cut or was just a low yield. Big difference. If its just low yield it would be left over tren base and whatever acid they use to attach the acetate ester. If its cut, whatever the hell they want.
I read somewhere that raws have to be refined after manufacturing, where the active hormone is separated from the base compounds. Whats left after the refining process still contains a lot of active hormone, but it's too costly to refine further. It seems likely that's what a 50% purity raw would be, but I'm just guessing.
mercury
New Member
I had the same thought, I think that they are getting some leftovers over which are not or cannot be refined and probably are dumped by the manufacturer.
This GC/MS testing have got us closer so far to a place to get a good powder. It only confirms that there is something inside.
Matixx
Banned
https://www.ecstasydata.org/send_sample.php
Anyone ever use them to test raws?
Anyone ever use them to test raws?
They dont do anything more then a labmax test. Hplc is what we really need
This is correct from what I've researched. The synthesis of chemicals produce by products. You can either extensively remove the byproducts (high purity but more loss) or go conservative and keep more desirable product at the cost of lower purity.
I'm happy to see that this seems to be the case versus heavy metals and other stuff.
Pat Arnold was specifically asked about heavy metals on phf and he said its not something to worry about and there should not be any involved in the process
amplejunkbin
New Member
After synthesizing a specific chemical, varying amounts of by-products, leftover catalysts, unused reagents, and potentially solvents remain. These can make up a significant portion of the immediately post-synthesis product. To create a pure product these adulterants must be removed. Creating a highly pure product (>98%) generally takes multiple passes. The desired product is iteratively isolated and, with each pass, purity is increased. Creating a highly pure product is expensive and can be time consuming. If you believe your client will probably not be testing their products or your clients have little recourse and you do not rely on repeat business, you are not incentivized to spend the extra time and money on increasing the purity of your shipped product.
N.B. The following ignores the intricacies of the brewing process (specifically the volume of a given mass of solute is treated as 0 removing the requirement of adjusting the volume of solvent).
100mg of a 50% pure raw powder has 50mg of the desired chemical. If I know this beforehand, I can use 200mg of our hypothetical 50% pure raw powder per ml and create a solution with a concentration of 100mg/ml of the desired chemical. I noticed some were confused on this point. The fact that mfl Trenbolone Acetate is 53% pure and has a concentration of roughly 85mg/ml suggests to me that MFL probably assumed the purity of their raw product was low and attempted to adjust accordingly.
Some of you might be thinking that simply adjusting the amount of raw accordingly to create the proper concentration of the desired chemical is sufficient. Problem solved, right? The real issue, as I see it, is that you have no idea what the remainder of the raw powder contains. 100 mg of 50% pure trenbolone acetate powder could, theoretically, contain 50mg of arsenic or lsd (goofy examples — not likely). The more likely case is that is contains various by-products present after the synthesis of trenbolone acetate as well as residual catalysts OR the powder could be purposefully "cut" with anything. The problem is that you have no idea and you are going to inject this into your body bypassing many protective mechanisms.
Is testing adulterants (maybe just common or exceptionally dangerous ones) possible? Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with what the likely by-products are for any given steroid synthesis. I have heard that heavy metal contamination is less likely with steroids unless produced with contaminated reagents or with contaminated equipment / in a contaminated environment (China anyone?).
Is anyone familiar with common adulterants found in UGL gear or found in poorly processed raws from (terrifying) suppliers? Does anyone have a line on how I might find this sort of information?
I have seen some anger directed at various labs. Keep in mind the labs are getting screwed too. They would prefer to get the purest raws possible. Think about it. The thing that should make you angry (but should not surprise you) is that they do not properly test their raws. For example MFL claims to do melting point tests with a capillary tube device. Not a great test. Personally, I assume that they use the deviation from the standard to very roughly determine how much to adjust the quantity of solute to use. Long post. Thanks for reading.
N.B. The following ignores the intricacies of the brewing process (specifically the volume of a given mass of solute is treated as 0 removing the requirement of adjusting the volume of solvent).
100mg of a 50% pure raw powder has 50mg of the desired chemical. If I know this beforehand, I can use 200mg of our hypothetical 50% pure raw powder per ml and create a solution with a concentration of 100mg/ml of the desired chemical. I noticed some were confused on this point. The fact that mfl Trenbolone Acetate is 53% pure and has a concentration of roughly 85mg/ml suggests to me that MFL probably assumed the purity of their raw product was low and attempted to adjust accordingly.
Some of you might be thinking that simply adjusting the amount of raw accordingly to create the proper concentration of the desired chemical is sufficient. Problem solved, right? The real issue, as I see it, is that you have no idea what the remainder of the raw powder contains. 100 mg of 50% pure trenbolone acetate powder could, theoretically, contain 50mg of arsenic or lsd (goofy examples — not likely). The more likely case is that is contains various by-products present after the synthesis of trenbolone acetate as well as residual catalysts OR the powder could be purposefully "cut" with anything. The problem is that you have no idea and you are going to inject this into your body bypassing many protective mechanisms.
Is testing adulterants (maybe just common or exceptionally dangerous ones) possible? Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with what the likely by-products are for any given steroid synthesis. I have heard that heavy metal contamination is less likely with steroids unless produced with contaminated reagents or with contaminated equipment / in a contaminated environment (China anyone?).
Is anyone familiar with common adulterants found in UGL gear or found in poorly processed raws from (terrifying) suppliers? Does anyone have a line on how I might find this sort of information?
I have seen some anger directed at various labs. Keep in mind the labs are getting screwed too. They would prefer to get the purest raws possible. Think about it. The thing that should make you angry (but should not surprise you) is that they do not properly test their raws. For example MFL claims to do melting point tests with a capillary tube device. Not a great test. Personally, I assume that they use the deviation from the standard to very roughly determine how much to adjust the quantity of solute to use. Long post. Thanks for reading.
Last edited:
adjust accordingly by putting even less product in?..
Mike Oxbig
New Member
90mg/ml of total POWDER, with only about half of that powder being tren ace.
If it's still confusing, the only think you need to take away from the situation is the fact that it contains roughly 50mg/ml of tren ace instead of the advertised 100mg/ml.
My post above explains it pretty simply and they used less powder not more. They didn't try to compensate at all for low purity and in fact even with 100% pure raws they would have had an under dosed product.
