Dr.EndoIndy said:It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.
Coming at Dr.EndoIndy’s question from a different direction. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.
Happy to go further on any of that.
One thing that is still open after Dr.EndoIndy’s answer:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsjason_paloalto said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.
jason_paloalto said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.