PurplePandaLabs Raw source

[Mac81]

I used to build fireworks ,like really big ones, big ass 6lb whistle rockets, I had a YouTube channel and everything, I used to distill a lot of nitric acid and nitrate things, most of that stuff dealt with really fine screens, a lot of different solvents, I never really had to vacuum filter anything

 

[Mac81]

Just get a hand pump.

Go to an auto store or some store like Harbor Freight.

Grab one of those hand pumps that you have to squeeze over and over. It works very well.

When you're filtering out The mother liquid., it's a very quick process, so it's not like when you're filtering out oil.

I thought about that, They have the s***** plastic ones on Amazon but you can get the metal ones from an auto parts store and they actually look like they would hold up for a while... I guess that is a good idea thanks for the advice I wasn't sure if I was going to do that or not now I will

 

[Sampei]

Can you do one message typing everything all together or you can't do less then 3 messages in a row to say anything?

 

[thebiggestmofo]

Can you do one message typing everything all together or you can't do less then 3 messages in a row to say anything?

That's

 

[thebiggestmofo]

Can you do one message typing everything all together or you can't do less then 3 messages in a row to say anything?

A good

 

[thebiggestmofo]

Can you do one message typing everything all together or you can't do less then 3 messages in a row to say anything?

Idea

 

[Photon]

You can't interpret GCMS like that.

The fact the auto-ID calls something testosterone cypionate at trace levels doesn't mean it's testesterone cypionate, it might just be the nearest hit in the database and instead it's boldenone that got a bit sideways fucked.

The methanol part has a quite significant bit after it - it's just a partial name of the compound (and also see the above).

In that case, what good is a GCMS report if the stuff that appears on the report, may or may not exist?

If we say the "impurities" that we do not want, may not exist, despite being on the report, then its as good as saying the "stuff we want" that appears on the report, may or may not exist.

 

[Babygeei]

I'm just wondering if I'm good to use the EQ? Would any one here not use it?

 

[janoshik]

In that case, what good is a GCMS report if the stuff that appears on the report, may or may not exist?

If we say the "impurities" that we do not want, may not exist, despite being on the report, then its as good as saying the "stuff we want" that appears on the report, may or may not exist.

That's why you need an actual expert to interpret those and that's why I always do provide a short summary.

 

[TheScholarOfBrew]

That's why you need an actual expert to interpret those and that's why I always do provide a short summary.

people think they can just look at a graph and understand some peaks. But YOU have access to the database that confirms what is the peak and what is not. Therefore that makes you the expert.

 

[Sampei]

I'm just wondering if I'm good to use the EQ? Would any one here not use it?

Have you done only GCMS on it or HPLC too?

 

[Photon]

I'm just wondering if I'm good to use the EQ? Would any one here not use it?

I would use it.
Thanks for the GCMS.

Have you done only GCMS on it or HPLC too?

Its 87%.
Same as what you got from Q.

 

[Photon]

That's why you need an actual expert to interpret those and that's why I always do provide a short summary.

Do we have to request it?
I'm looking at this and I see no summary..

Janoshik Analytical

Basically what you're saying is that the GCMS data to us, is useless, and what we're paying for, is the summary. What can we expect the summary to include?

For each line item in the GCMS data, is it possible to include the confidence level, that that particular substance exists, in the sample?

 

[Sampei]

I would use it.


Its 87%.
Same as what you got from Q.

87% Is fine, use It it's EQ can't expect that much better ingot 87% and 90% EQ never seen better

 

[Babygeei]

Appreciate the feedback. I only did GCMS.

I would use it.
Thanks for the GCMS.


Its 87%.
Same as what you got from Q.

87% Is fine, use It it's EQ can't expect that much better ingot 87% and 90% EQ never seen better

 

[Photon]

Appreciate the feedback. I only did GCMS.

You did HPLC here
PurplePandaLabs Raw source

 

[Babygeei]

You did HPLC here
PurplePandaLabs Raw source

You're right. I'm retarded.

 

[janoshik]

Do we have to request it?
I'm looking at this and I see no summary..

Janoshik Analytical

Basically what you're saying is that the GCMS data to us, is useless, and what we're paying for, is the summary. What can we expect the summary to include?

For each line item in the GCMS data, is it possible to include the confidence level, that that particular substance exists, in the sample?

Good point.

In that particular case it fits perfectly, though, so I probably thought it didn't warrant a summary, which would be like "sample contained common oil components and testosterone cypionate, with minor testosterone enanthate contamination"

But that's exactly what it shows, too. That evaluation from my side did definitely happen.

Hope this helps

Cheers

 

[Babygeei]

Good point.

In that particular case it fits perfectly, though, so I probably thought it didn't warrant a summary, which would be like "sample contained common oil components and testosterone cypionate, with minor testosterone enanthate contamination"

But that's exactly what it shows, too. That evaluation from my side did definitely happen.

Hope this helps

Cheers

Looks like the summary was in the test report

 

[Mac81]

I received my lost order from these guys today.. can't complain,they made sure it was sealed well this time,and everything was replaced, definitely will deal with them again if I need anything else.