steph_laguna said:I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Nothing to add that would improve it.
steph_laguna said:I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFollowing on from steph_laguna — and this may be the naive question:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
PeptideSynthNJ said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.