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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Following on from Dr.EM_Chicago — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
Dr.PathRoch said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.PathRoch said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Dr.PathRoch said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.