hank_denver said:Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Posting only so the count is not one.
hank_denver said:Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
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 StandardsFollowing on from hank_denver — and this may be the naive question:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
jason_paloalto 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…
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.