Dr.BariatricHTX said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.

PeptideChemSF said:

If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

One thing that is still open after PeptideChemSF’s answer:

How long did you give it before you decided it was working?

Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again.