Dr.SleepRoch said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Mine went the same way, slower. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Dr.SleepRoch said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
One concrete data point for the thread. 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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne thing that is still open after Dr.SleepRoch’s answer:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
PeptideChemSF 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…
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.