Save your unusable raws Guaranteed.

[dinfaralt]

1 to 2& is 1000% theoretical based on everything being absolutely perfect and nothing ever is

they're pretty close to most of the time. they're recieving thousands upon thousands of orders.

their instruments are extremely calibrated against the same type of molecules they're testing.

i feel like from experience testing stuff with them they're almost always point on

 

[Thorshammer]

sorry i was just throwing out a jab, many angry guys on this forum lately so its fun to troll, you're a chill guy so im sorry

you can learn everything on youtub

All Im saying brother is analytical chemistry is a bunch of very sensitive measurements stacked on top of each other and lots of math and a thousand places for tiny errors NO ONE is perfect

 

[Thorshammer]

they're pretty close to most of the time. they're recieving thousands upon thousands of orders.

their instruments are extremely calibrated against the same type of molecules they're testing.

i feel like from experience testing stuff with them they're almost always point on

But how would ypu know a couple percent off.

 

[dinfaralt]

All Im saying brother is analytical chemistry is a bunch of very sensitive measurements stacked on top of each other and lots of math and a thousand places for tiny errors NO ONE is perfect

i know, ive seen some mistakes of jano which i've pointed out. but for raws a single molecule. hes almost always point on.

 

[SwoleOne81]

jano has around 1-2% error rate although he allows for higher percantages its extremely rare.

always just treat his numbers as a very accurate estimate from my experience and not some guy who watched how to test steroids on youtube xd

I assume plus and/or minus?

 

[dinfaralt]

But how would ypu know a couple percent off.

testing hplc after getting almost 250mg/ml if i make it to be 250mg/ml with calculation the raw is 93% for example. he is always extremely close to be 98-99% accuracy

 

[Thorshammer]

testing hplc after getting almost 250mg/ml if i make it to be 250mg/ml with calculation the raw is 93% for example. he is always extremely close to be 98-99% accuracy

What concerns me is when their is 4 tests and only 1 is different and automatically the other 3 that align are discarded. Thats not a scientific method is religion. I would care who did the test I would call it an anomaly and retest

 

[Thorshammer]

Its also why I never send a singke sample I send multiple.

 

[dinfaralt]

What concerns me is when their is 4 tests and only 1 is different and automatically the other 3 that align are discarded. Thats not a scientific method is religion. I would care who did the test I would call it an anomaly and retest

pretty sure it might be like this because its been like this before but you can spend more money on testing jano. im confident in what he gives out most of the time when it comes to raws

MESO-Rx Sponsor Post in thread 'AASraw: GMP-Certified Steroid and Peptide API Manufacturer'

Yesterday at 12:43 PM

That's the GCMS right?

no it might be different for raws tested vs oils.

oils obfuscate more than testing 1 thing(raw)

gcms just reveals everything

hplc just shows purity for 1 thing

if 80% oil it might fuck up on 5 different items with test being very small %

they can still co-elute with raws but its less likely than in oils

• dinfaralt

 

[Thorshammer]

pretty sure it might be like this because its been like this before but you can spend more money on testing jano. im confident in what he gives out most of the time when it comes to raws

MESO-Rx Sponsor Post in thread 'AASraw: GMP-Certified Steroid and Peptide API Manufacturer'

Yesterday at 12:43 PM

That's the GCMS right?

no it might be different for raws tested vs oils.

oils obfuscate more than testing 1 thing(raw)

gcms just reveals everything

hplc just shows purity for 1 thing

if 80% oil it might fuck up on 5 different items with test being very small %

they can still co-elute with raws but its less likely than in oils

• dinfaralt

Most of the time is fine but if the results don't make sense or conflict with another lab I will retest anything else isn't logical.

 

[Thorshammer]

It's cheaper to retest if something seems off than release product that I'm not sure about and risk the reputation it has taken me 15 years ro build.

 

[SwoleOne81]

If raws are only 93–95% pure, how are you guys accounting for that when calculating final concentration? And does 0.22 µm PTFE filtering really help with impurities on lower-grade raws, or is it basically just for particulates and sterility?

 

[Thorshammer]

If raws are only 93–95% pure, how are you guys accounting for that when calculating final concentration? And does 0.22 µm PTFE filtering really help with impurities on lower-grade raws, or is it basically just for particulates and sterility?

Filtration is for particals/microorganisms it will not remove anything soluble. And you calculate the solution for the impurity

 

[Photon]

It's cheaper to retest if something seems off than release product that I'm not sure about and risk the reputation it has taken me 15 years ro build.

You talking about that vendor?
You know they don't test before selling right?

They post a 99% pure report made in Microsoft word for each batch for all products.

 

[Thorshammer]

You talking about that vendor?
You know they don't test before selling right?

They post a 99% pure report made in Microsoft word for each batch for all products.

Vendor COAs are pure fiction. Im talking the other labs samples were sent to.

 

[Thorshammer]

I dont even ask for vendor COAs I could care less I don't believe anything they sat

 

[Thorshammer]

Accredited labs testing for big pharma male mistakes and have to retest. All I'm saying is we treat one lab like they can never screw up

 

[Photon]

Accredited labs testing for big pharma male mistakes and have to retest. All I'm saying is we treat one lab like they can never screw up

It was tested twice actually
My sample, AASraw's sample.
1% Variance

 

[SwoleOne81]

Filtration is for particals/microorganisms it will not remove anything soluble. And you calculate the solution for the impurity

Filtration is for particals/microorganisms it will not remove anything soluble. And you calculate the solution for the impurity

You adjust for purity in the math, not the process—actual active = raw weight × purity; anything soluble passes the filter and must be accounted for, not removed. Got it.

 

[Thorshammer]

Okay then if you got the same results twice then you can trust it. But I have seen several conversations where anamolies are present and not second guessed and that makes no sense to me.