the Janoshik thing finally clicked for me and I want to write it down
the Janoshik thing finally clicked for me and I want to write it down, and I am aware this is a minority view on this board. Fourth lot from the same supplier in the log now and the band has been tight the whole way. That consistency is the actual finding. Tested three lots over a year rather than three vials from…
How to build a series that means something, if you are going to spend money on testing anyway.
Three tests on one lot tells you about your measurement. Three tests on three lots, spread over a year, tells you about a process. The second is the one worth paying for and it costs the same.
Buy small, keep the batch numbers, send one vial per lot, and post each one with the claim next to it. After four or five you have something no individual review can give you: a band, a direction and a date range. That is what the source pages are made of.
That service reports area percent by default. Worth stating, since the thread has been comparing it to a mass figure.
the log is cumulative, that is the whole value of it
Kept every report as a PDF with the batch in the filename. Two years in, it is the most useful folder I own.
Push back: three tests on one lot is one lot. It tells you about that lot and almost nothing about the next one.
a result with no batch number is about a vial nobody can identify
Split one vial between VendorInvestigate and Medutest. The two numbers were within half a point of each other and I stopped worrying about which lab to trust.
Split one vial between VendorInvestigate and Medutest.
noor_cardoso is right that the band matters more than the peak. Consistency across lots is the finding.
Yes — date of analysis, because a result from two years ago describes a different manufacturing month.
WXT BPC, batch matched the paperwork, Janoshik came back 98.7% against a claimed 98.0%. Paid for it myself, posting it because the log is only worth anything if people do.