CarlaRPh_TPA said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
One thing that is still open after CarlaRPh_TPA’s answer:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsPharmacoVig_BOS said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.
PharmacoVig_BOS said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
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.