Secret Sources, the SCOC and the Steroid Underground

[atxwarpig]

I definitely desire source information,I am on other boards as well,I just check to see what people say about sources on here.
Personally I think people should rate the source and gear on 1/10 scale.

Thanks for the info bros. imma stick around and learn some stuff.

 

[armbreaker]

Well as you all know MD is a piece of shit. I got ripped off on 50g of test e . Package landed failed melt test by 3.5 degrees brewed up just fine. Pined 3 days ago and my ass feels like u got hit with a sludge hammer. I've emailed that dude and he says that stuff is g2g it normal.

 

[armbreaker]

View attachment 24239 Well as you all know MD is a piece of shit. I got ripped off on 50g of test e . Package landed failed melt test by 3.5 degrees brewed up just fine. Pined 3 days ago and my ass feels like u got hit with a sludge hammer. I've emailed that dude and he says that stuff is g2g it normal.

Started melting @99.5

 

[nophat]

Pain on test E that sucks.
Should have looked at other members in put on them.
You prob would have went else wear. What does the test smell like?

 

[armbreaker]

Pain on test E that sucks.
Should have looked at other members in put on them.
You prob would have went else wear. What does the test smell like?

Like nothing at all

 

[nophat]

Wow nothing
When you hold it between you fingers does it turn pasty?

 

[armbreaker]

Wow nothing
When you hold it between you fingers does it turn pasty?

Yep it did

 

[nophat]

Seems like E
What was melting point.
Just because it melts a couple degrees of dose not mean it's not testE.
What ever the cut it with cold be the pain.
I hated those days when shit hurt or was bunk. Never got complete bunk.
But learned a lesson last year here
When I took the word of a member.
Made me look stupid
No more of that
You will find some one time will help you

 

[nophat]

Is you test liquid look like it in the pic?

 

[armbreaker]

Seems like E
What was melting point.
Just because it melts a couple degrees of dose not mean it's not testE.
What ever the cut it with cold be the pain.
I hated those days when shit hurt or was bunk. Never got complete bunk.
But learned a lesson last year here
When I took the word of a member.
Made me look stupid
No more of that
You will find some one time will help you

Melted at 99.5

 

[armbreaker]

Is you test liquid look like it in the pic?

Here is liquid with no oil

 

[armbreaker]

Here is liquid with no oil View attachment 24275

If it's real I think it's less then 50%

 

[pumpingiron22]

dam that sucks

 

[Dr JIM]

Started melting @99.5View attachment 24242

Before you can determine the reliability of any test you must also confirm the accuracy of the analytical device being used and it's optimal application.

In this instance your using a DIGITAL THERMOMETER specifically designed for biologic temps. And the difference is significant since those thermometers ARE NOT designed to measure chemical temps.

Note the clear difference in HOW a sample temp is processed and measured when a device designed for that purpose is utilized.









A more simplified MP device





A more complicated, accurate and expensive MP device



Your pic readily depicts the first problem, which is the glass receptacle being used must be heated first and BEFORE the test compound even begins to melt. This will falsely elevate the MP of any sample, bc both the glass receptacle and sample must be heated!

For these reasons IF you are going to use a MP BUY THE CORRECT device to obtain reproducible information.

Also notice the NORMAL variance of roughly THREE DEGREES for T-e according to USP standards (Under the physical and chemical properties caption)

 

[nophat]

Well all right

 

[Mr.Bravo]

Before you can determine the reliability of any test you must also confirm the accuracy of the analytical device being used and it's optimal application.

In this instance your using a DIGITAL THERMOMETER specifically designed for biologic temps. And the difference is significant since those thermometers ARE NOT designed to measure chemical temps.

Note the clear difference in HOW a sample temp is processed and measured when a device designed for that purpose is utilized.


View attachment 24279






A more simplified MP device

View attachment 24280



A more complicated, accurate and expensive MP device

View attachment 24281

Your pic readily depicts the first problem, which is the glass receptacle being used must be heated first and BEFORE the test compound even begins to melt. This will falsely elevate the MP of any sample, bc both the glass receptacle and sample must be heated!

For these reasons IF you are going to use a MP BUY THE CORRECT device to obtain reproducible information.

Also notice the NORMAL variance of roughly THREE DEGREES for T-e according to USP standards (Under the physical and chemical properties caption)

Thanks Dr.jim I figured that type of thermometer was no good for this test. I appreciate you taking the time to always show us the more technical side of things.
sincerely
Mr.Bravo

 

[armbreaker]

Before you can determine the reliability of any test you must also confirm the accuracy of the analytical device being used and it's optimal application.

In this instance your using a DIGITAL THERMOMETER specifically designed for biologic temps. And the difference is significant since those thermometers ARE NOT designed to measure chemical temps.

Note the clear difference in HOW a sample temp is processed and measured when a device designed for that purpose is utilized.


View attachment 24279






A more simplified MP device

View attachment 24280



A more complicated, accurate and expensive MP device

View attachment 24281

Your pic readily depicts the first problem, which is the glass receptacle being used must be heated first and BEFORE the test compound even begins to melt. This will falsely elevate the MP of any sample, bc both the glass receptacle and sample must be heated!

For these reasons IF you are going to use a MP BUY THE CORRECT device to obtain reproducible information.

Also notice the NORMAL variance of roughly THREE DEGREES for T-e according to USP standards (Under the physical and chemical properties caption)[/

Started melting @99.5View attachment 24242

Before you can determine the reliability of any test you must also confirm the accuracy of the analytical device being used and it's optimal application.

In this instance your using a DIGITAL THERMOMETER specifically designed for biologic temps. And the difference is significant since those thermometers ARE NOT designed to measure chemical temps.

Note the clear difference in HOW a sample temp is processed and measured when a device designed for that purpose is utilized.


View attachment 24279






A more simplified MP device

View attachment 24280



A more complicated, accurate and expensive MP device

View attachment 24281

Your pic readily depicts the first problem, which is the glass receptacle being used must be heated first and BEFORE the test compound even begins to melt. This will falsely elevate the MP of any sample, bc both the glass receptacle and sample must be heated!

For these reasons IF you are going to use a MP BUY THE CORRECT device to obtain reproducible information.

Also notice the NORMAL variance of roughly THREE DEGREES for T-e according to USP standards (Under the physical and chemical properties caption)

it was heated first thesame time as the water it was done slow until it reached 94 then I dropped test in it and brought it it up slow the first liquid drop did not appear till temp reached 97.1 99.5 is when it turned to liquid. It took a half hour from drop in to melt. My not be perfect but it works. If done this before and the shit I had then melted on point

 

[Dr JIM]

^^^
It may have "worked" IYO but the results can NOT be relied upon to confirm or refute the quality of the UGL product being tested.

Besides "99.5" is within the MP range of T-e. Moreover, a MP is defined as that temp in which a solid substance BEGINS to form a liquid or "melt".

 

[Conservative]

 

[Conservative]