Mass Spec Thread

[4leafclover]

The guy in the eroids post, did not explain the math at all; all he did was say that @ 88% it was overdosed... Lightspan is correct in how the mass spec works (he left out the magnetic field, but I assume this is for ease of explanation, as his explanation I guess was aimed at making it easier to digest). Lightspan from what I remember, is also very knowledgeable in this area, I would assume it's because he has some interaction with the actual machines at some point in his life (I however have only had interactions with the reports). But the way it was explained to me in college, bears a lot of similarities to how LS explained it here. They calculate the actual mass (read as concentration per ML in our case), and give an amount of the main molecule in question (when the molecule is known, which in this case it is as reflected in his post as 401.3056), reflected as purity.

 

[FuriousWO]

The guy in the eroids post, did not explain the math at all; all he did was say that @ 88% it was overdosed... Lightspan is correct in how the mass spec works (he left out the magnetic field, but I assume this is for ease of explanation, as his explanation I guess was aimed at making it easier to digest). Lightspan from what I remember, is also very knowledgeable in this area, I would assume it's because he has some interaction with the actual machines at some point in his life (I however have only had interactions with the reports). But the way it was explained to me in college, bears a lot of similarities to how LS explained it here. They calculate the actual mass (read as concentration per ML in our case), and give an amount of the main molecule in question (when the molecule is known, which in this case it is as reflected in his post as 401.3056), reflected as purity.

Can you dumb that down? Are you saying the 202 reflects total substances or only test e?

 

[inkandmuscle]

This shit is confusing!

 

[ccccc123]

Its there any Astro MS report?

 

[flenser]

From the test e report:

Concentration = 150/4 x 9810/22400 x 12.3 mg/ml = 202 mg/ml

Those numbers appear nowhere else in the report, though all the "stuff" is plotted on the chart it is printed on. Can anyone explain where those numbers come from?

 

[4leafclover]

Those other numbers are the other items that hit the detection plates, they represent another molecule. Since I don't know the molecular weight of those items (you would need a molecular statistician or the software program that analyzes them to see what they are), I can't tell you what they are. But they are the "other" substances found in his test, they can range from amino acids, to bacteria, to other steroids (dependent on clean his processes are), to heavy metals. Those are commonly found in UGL mass specs. 202 reflects total "stuff" or substances per ML, not 250 as the label indicates.

The numbers you are referencing (if I am reading your question right, which I am not sure I am, so I am answering two questions, hoping I am hitting the right one) above is the conversion math to get the concentration per ML, since they use a much smaller amount of substance during the actual testing, they need a formula to arrive at how much per ML of total substance is actually present vs what the label states.

I might be misinterpreting your question, so hopefully LS will hop back on to answer. As he has a way with words, and making things easier to read.

 

[flenser]

Those other numbers are the other items that hit the detection plates, they represent another molecule. Since I don't know the molecular weight of those items (you would need a molecular statistician or the software program that analyzes them to see what they are), I can't tell you what they are. But they are the "other" substances found in his test, they can range from amino acids, to bacteria, to other steroids (dependent on clean his processes are), to heavy metals. Those are commonly found in UGL mass specs. 202 reflects total "stuff" or substances per ML, not 250 as the label indicates.

The numbers you are referencing (if I am reading your question right, which I am not sure I am, so I am answering two questions, hoping I am hitting the right one) above is the conversion math to get the concentration per ML, since they use a much smaller amount of substance during the actual testing, they need a formula to arrive at how much per ML of total substance is actually present vs what the label states.

I might be misinterpreting your question, so hopefully LS will hop back on to answer. As he has a way with words, and making things easier to read.

I assumed it was a conversion, but at least ONE of the numbers has to come from the chart. If that value represents just the test e, Burr is correct, but if it's the sum of all the peaks, LS is correct. It really bugs me that the most important value in the entire report has been defined so ambiguously.

 

[4leafclover]

It also sucks that there is no literature on the internet about interpreting mass specs for steroids, there is literature on interpreting mass specs for steroids found present in organism's but none for substance testing. And the way I was taught mass spec, was in general (dealing with identifying molecules, not specifically steroids), it also doesn't help that the axis used aren't really easily convertible.

Here is a good video, that explains that it is everything present in the mass spec that is used to determine %. It is fairly "sciency" so I apologize.

 

[flenser]

Here is a good video, that explains that it is everything present in the mass spec that is used to determine %. It is fairly "sciency" so I apologize.

It was actually pretty straight forward, thanks.

 

[4leafclover]

So you see, the purity (or %) was derived from the sum of all the isotopes (stuff) present in the sample, and the calculation of the whole gives us both the % of testosterone present, and the total of stuff present per an ML calculation. So, 202 total stuff present per ml, and 68% of that was identified as testosterone.

So ignore the label (which indicates 250 test per ml), and you get 137.36 of test per ML, which is 202 per ML total "stuff". Lightspan was just kind enough to convert it back to the 250 per ML range for us, as to account for his bloodwork.

137.36 MG/ML reflects nicely the range (or 274.72 per week, roughly since he does e3d) of his bloodwork.

I must say though, that the stuff Burr quoted is of nice quality if you can believe eroids posts (he didn't actually post the MS, just what he thought was the data from it).

 

[flenser]

Yea, the way LS does it is the same way I took it at first glance, and it fits blood work nicely - if not what I would expect Titan to mix into the oil. But without actually understanding the equation he (Angus) used to get the concentration there's no way to know for sure he didn't just compute the concentration of the TE.

 

[4leafclover]

Most of the time, the software attached to the Mass Spec machine does the computation, not necessarily the person. I believe (depending on the software used, someone else who is more knowledgeable about this component should comment) you can select the isotopes you want measured, as I've seen mass specs that isolate bacteria, heavy metals, and amino acid purity as well.

That doesn't mean that the file couldn't be edited, as anyone with adobe pro can alter a document. And this is common software in a lab.

 

[FuriousWO]

Someone had the question into Angus about what the 202 refers to right? We can debate this all day but it's ambiguous so it's useless.

But aside from the test e, what about the anavar? How do we determine the dosage on that? Someone I thought said weighing them wasn't going to work in the TL thread?

 

[4leafclover]

202 refers to the total weight of all the isotopes measured, they know the amount of substance they put into the mass spec, so they can estimate the actual ml vs. what the label states. 202 refers to the actual amount of material present per ML. It isn't ambiguous, it's just hard to explain, especially over the internet. LS posted the amount they put into the machine, this is how they calculate the 202.

 

[FuriousWO]

So what about the anavar?

 

[FuriousWO]

It isn't ambiguous, it's just hard to explain, especially over the internet. LS posted the amount they put into the machine, this is how they calculate the 202.

Fair enough

 

[4leafclover]

Titan's pill looks like trash to me, out of the 20mg converted to powder, only 2.9% of it came back as anavar. There is a wide range of other substances (much more so than with his test) present in the mass spec, and quite a few with significant peeks, I would at the very least want to know what those are, before I used it. Especially if a girl was using it.

 

[Burrr]

http://www.eroids.com/pics/estimation-of-steroids-concentration-by-mass-spec

They are able to find the concentration of a particular molecule.
No need to take .68 of 202mg/ml

 

[4leafclover]

huh, that information doesn't say that? Can you explain further your reasoning?

 

[4leafclover]

In the mass spec we viewed, the concentration of the molecule was based on 202, not 250. They disregarded the label and put the actual concentration...