One thing that is still open after claudia_zurich’s answer:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
DataDave 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 read this differently from DataDave, on substance rather than tone. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
DataDave 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…
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
Happy to go further on any of that.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDataDave 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…
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.