MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
MESO "Specialized" Testing Group Fund
- Thread starter readalot
- Start date
MadaFacor
Member
Why dont peptide resellers test for TAMC and TYMC? Is it because BAC will take care of it anyways? Or because it's so prevalent that we don't want to know?
Or just the fact that nobody cares? I'm just thinking that if you have that type of additional testing included you might give the gray market buyers a huge incentive to use your product?
Or just the fact that nobody cares? I'm just thinking that if you have that type of additional testing included you might give the gray market buyers a huge incentive to use your product?
I will provide my comments this week.
No it’s all the same batch I made. I think that’s the result of jano applying heat.
I think he was messing with you. Lol.
All the pics were shared. Basically 100% purity raw and if your stuff was cloudy then by all means give us all more of that "cloudiness".
@kain was kind enough to get the raw data report (extra 20 bucks after the fact) for the HPLC test on the TRA raw used for our project.
The report states 98%+.
Now run the math on the actual measured purity:
Purity = 34.56 mg / 34.2 mg = 101%.
Very instructive to always get the actual numbers so you can compare. Folks need to understand the uncertainty involved in the methods.
In summary, the HPLC data and GCMS data find this is a very high quality raw.
Last edited:
Good question. Expensive test at Jano and you would have to test each vial practically speaking. I tried to get Jano to report out quarterly findings but wasn't much community support and I moved on.
See my previous threads. Enhanced Testing, etc.
Spaceman Spiff
Subscriber
I wasn't.
Can you explain a little?
Thanks for the clarification. Not following your "cloudy" comment then.
In the second set of pictures where the solutions are darker, the one on the right looks a little cloudy or maybe it’s fingerprint. I assumed that was what @Spaceman Spiff was referring to. That was after Jano heated them.
Spaceman Spiff
Subscriber
Been getting alot of questions so some brief comments.
Comments on color before and after.
If TRA-a is the same vial in the before and after pics (no heat treatment), then the darkness level (whatever the appropriate visual term) is higher in second photo. Something to keep in mind.
What is striking to me is the color of TRA-c vial (comparatively) after 15 hours at 80-100 deg C. That vial was blasted thermally yet color still lighter than TRA vial I received from another source and clearly lighter than other products floating around out there. So temperature not the big driver by itself. A USP/pharma MCT carrier oil was used for these vials with low peroxide value. Vial had air headspace but no mixing (sealed during heating?).
So a nice raw plus quality carrier oil seems to a make a large difference on color deterioration over time at high temps. Raw quality / color presumably a big factor. No vendor is brewing for 15 hours at 80 degrees C based on folks I have spoken with.
The GCMS data is very very clear. The only components detected for the 3 vials are BA, BB, TRA, and the triglyceride and FFAs of C8 and C10. The carrier oil used was a 60:40 MCT.
Hence, we could not discern chemically what causes the color based on these experiments. Clearly the color wasn't dark enough to detect any degradation impurities by GCMS. This is interesting since @janoshik has openly stated he has tested alot of "dark" tren and additional peaks besides the tren ester are clearly evident (at least that is how I interpreted his comment). Maybe he will comment. Very nice we were able to start with a clean raw and show heat by itself does not drive degradation of TRA raw in presence of low peroxide value. I have asked @janoshik for the HPLC chromatograms as well to prove only TRA detected for all three vials.
Finally, vial TRA-c measured higher mg/ml TRA than vial TRA-a. More to come on that but please don't conclude that "higher color tren is stronger tren". Closer examination of the GCMS data suggests the TRA was concentrated by loss of BA and carrier oil during the heating process. Were the stoppers vented? I don't know. But I will share some analysis of the GCMS data (consistent with HPLC data) that shows enrichment of TRA in solution. This is also unexpected since the vapor pressures of BA and n-C8 and n-C10 FFAs are quite low under 100 deg C.
Gear detective is evidently close to a full time job. More to come.
Comments on color before and after.
If TRA-a is the same vial in the before and after pics (no heat treatment), then the darkness level (whatever the appropriate visual term) is higher in second photo. Something to keep in mind.
What is striking to me is the color of TRA-c vial (comparatively) after 15 hours at 80-100 deg C. That vial was blasted thermally yet color still lighter than TRA vial I received from another source and clearly lighter than other products floating around out there. So temperature not the big driver by itself. A USP/pharma MCT carrier oil was used for these vials with low peroxide value. Vial had air headspace but no mixing (sealed during heating?).
So a nice raw plus quality carrier oil seems to a make a large difference on color deterioration over time at high temps. Raw quality / color presumably a big factor. No vendor is brewing for 15 hours at 80 degrees C based on folks I have spoken with.
The GCMS data is very very clear. The only components detected for the 3 vials are BA, BB, TRA, and the triglyceride and FFAs of C8 and C10. The carrier oil used was a 60:40 MCT.
Hence, we could not discern chemically what causes the color based on these experiments. Clearly the color wasn't dark enough to detect any degradation impurities by GCMS. This is interesting since @janoshik has openly stated he has tested alot of "dark" tren and additional peaks besides the tren ester are clearly evident (at least that is how I interpreted his comment). Maybe he will comment. Very nice we were able to start with a clean raw and show heat by itself does not drive degradation of TRA raw in presence of low peroxide value. I have asked @janoshik for the HPLC chromatograms as well to prove only TRA detected for all three vials.
Finally, vial TRA-c measured higher mg/ml TRA than vial TRA-a. More to come on that but please don't conclude that "higher color tren is stronger tren". Closer examination of the GCMS data suggests the TRA was concentrated by loss of BA and carrier oil during the heating process. Were the stoppers vented? I don't know. But I will share some analysis of the GCMS data (consistent with HPLC data) that shows enrichment of TRA in solution. This is also unexpected since the vapor pressures of BA and n-C8 and n-C10 FFAs are quite low under 100 deg C.
Gear detective is evidently close to a full time job. More to come.
Last edited:
It is unclear to me who applied the labels.
All three vials in second pic (after pic) appear to be extremely clear consistent with before pic based on my observation.
Yep, I used a Phomemo D30 label maker.
Photon
Member
Which means it was highly likely the vials did not hit 100c. The labels should turn black at that temperature.
One thing I've also noticed with Tren is that when a blend is made with clear compounds (Mast + Test), the resulting blend is usually clear yellow and stays that way.
All the China blends for Ripped (Test P + Mast P + TRA) have stayed yellow despite the other individual TRA or TRE oils changing color.
I got a "lean gains" blend here (labeled as mast e / tren e) that is orange.
Photon
Member
EQ(200mg)/MastE(100mg)/TrenE(50mg)?
To turn orange with 50mg..that's one really dark tren lol
Similar threads
