Energy Control Analytical Services

[Janoshik]

EnergyControl" pid='12451' dateline='1525884133:

Janoshik" pid='12448' dateline='1525883825:

EnergyControl" pid='12441' dateline='1525883192:

Janoshik" pid='12433' dateline='1525881717:

EnergyControl" pid='12428' dateline='1525881184:

It’s absorption is far higher than the ridiculously low 180nm you claimed. Again, even an amateur chemist could determine this.

I have never ever even written 180 nm anywhere, liar.
That’s even under absorbance of any solvent - how comes I know that and you don’t?

I said, you can’t reliably detect anavar at 240 nm or above and that nobody in the world does that. I have provided proof of 3 well known analytical labs - me, Analyzer and SIMEC.

You claimed you can prove that Oxandrolone being detected at 240 nm or above can be verified with “a quick Google search.”

Why don’t you show us?

The quick Google search is taking you two hours now.

C’mon, show us one example of a study or lab report where they do that that can be Googled.

In our emails, you had mentioned 180-220nm at some point. Am I misremembering? It was fairly recently.

Let me ask you this: if you had to use HPLC and were to set your UV detector to test for Anavar (and common contaminants), what two wavelengths might you choose? Do you know why you might think above 240nm it becomes less reliably detectable? Are you aware mobile phase and column length affect that? Or that higher wavelengths allow us to test for more common contaminants? Might you just have learned different methods or perhaps ones just more specifically suited to your equipment and methods?

Yes, you are ‘misremembering’. I mentioned 200nm. Do you want to post our email conversation here, or is it enough that I have forwarded it to people who can verify that?

My method uses 190, 200 and 240 nm. Your method claims to have used 245 nm and 290 nm ( with detection at 242 nm which… was not used so I assume that it’s just another typo).

https://imgur.com/e4VEWTF

I know exactly why it’s not reliably detectable - it simply has extremely small absorbance at that level.

Mobile phase and column length affect… Absorbance? Now you are just kidding me, get back to school.

So you test for contaminants in anavar, but don’t test for the anavar itself, if you use wavelengths that high?

Stop shifting burden of proof on me now - you claimed you can prove that Oxandrolone being detected at 240 nm or above can be verified with “a quick Google search.”

Did you not?

The quick Google search is taking you well over two hours now.

C’mon, show us one example of a study or lab report where they do that that can be Googled.

You are wasting so much time with this, when you could’ve posted a one simple google link… Makes one wonder.

I’m beginning to think you are simply misunderstanding our methods. 240/245 (close to #s you used) and 290 are very reasonable numbers to be using — as we’ve said, and perhaps this is some of the source of confusion so we’ll clarify again, the 290 number is to scan for contaminants, the lower number being used for the anavar itself. Nothing about that is abnormal.

Also, I’m not sure your point about column length and mobile phase, these have obvious effects on plenty of things, retention time, wavelength, etc. If you frequently use unique mobile phases or tailored ones you’d notice a lot of that changes even if you just go from a C4 to C18 column, for example.

Alice, Alice, Alice.

You are claiming a peak of Anavar at 240 nm had an area of 350 000. This is a test where 200nm and 240 nm is used

https://imgur.com/uj97dvQ

You can see that the pink peak (240 nm) is barely noticeable, while the black one, at 200 nm is glorious and visible. So who in their right mind would use the small one, when even the slightest impurity would fuck those data over and make them useless? Nobody, that’s who. And you can’t avoid impurities in caps and pills. Especially with an unoptimized isocratic method that you claim to use (

https://imgur.com/e4VEWTF

) and a 5um column - what are we, in the stone age?

The area at 240 nm is 18 500 at maximum solubility in chloroform… Now do you dare to claim that your instrument is 20 times more sensitive? Or that oxandrolone is not very soluble in chloroform?
Because I will be happy to prove that there is no UV detector in existence that is 20 times more sensitive than mine.

If you claim that absorbance of a compound that is not a ion, such as oxandrolone, changes with mobile phase and column used you are giving every chemist a good laugh. For the folks who are not chemists - EC here claims an equivalent of the following: “if you dissolve red food colouring in water, vodka and 200 proof alcohol, the red will be different color in every solution” That’s how ridiculous it is.

If changing the length of a carbon in columns changes absorbance in your opinion, you are a lost case.

I’ll leave it to other people, even undergrads are enough to tear you down for that kind of bullshit.

---

Still waiting for the quick google search result, by the way.

Like many, I’m sure.

 

[EnergyControl]

U

EnergyControl" pid='12451' dateline='1525884133:

Janoshik" pid='12448' dateline='1525883825:

EnergyControl" pid='12441' dateline='1525883192:

Janoshik" pid='12433' dateline='1525881717:

I have never ever even written 180 nm anywhere, liar.
That’s even under absorbance of any solvent - how comes I know that and you don’t?

I said, you can’t reliably detect anavar at 240 nm or above and that nobody in the world does that. I have provided proof of 3 well known analytical labs - me, Analyzer and SIMEC.

You claimed you can prove that Oxandrolone being detected at 240 nm or above can be verified with “a quick Google search.”

Why don’t you show us?

The quick Google search is taking you two hours now.

C’mon, show us one example of a study or lab report where they do that that can be Googled.

In our emails, you had mentioned 180-220nm at some point. Am I misremembering? It was fairly recently.

Let me ask you this: if you had to use HPLC and were to set your UV detector to test for Anavar (and common contaminants), what two wavelengths might you choose? Do you know why you might think above 240nm it becomes less reliably detectable? Are you aware mobile phase and column length affect that? Or that higher wavelengths allow us to test for more common contaminants? Might you just have learned different methods or perhaps ones just more specifically suited to your equipment and methods?

Yes, you are ‘misremembering’. I mentioned 200nm. Do you want to post our email conversation here, or is it enough that I have forwarded it to people who can verify that?

My method uses 190, 200 and 240 nm. Your method claims to have used 245 nm and 290 nm ( with detection at 242 nm which… was not used so I assume that it’s just another typo).

https://imgur.com/e4VEWTF

I know exactly why it’s not reliably detectable - it simply has extremely small absorbance at that level.

Mobile phase and column length affect… Absorbance? Now you are just kidding me, get back to school.

So you test for contaminants in anavar, but don’t test for the anavar itself, if you use wavelengths that high?

Stop shifting burden of proof on me now - you claimed you can prove that Oxandrolone being detected at 240 nm or above can be verified with “a quick Google search.”

Did you not?

The quick Google search is taking you well over two hours now.

C’mon, show us one example of a study or lab report where they do that that can be Googled.

You are wasting so much time with this, when you could’ve posted a one simple google link… Makes one wonder.

I’m beginning to think you are simply misunderstanding our methods. 240/245 (close to #s you used) and 290 are very reasonable numbers to be using — as we’ve said, and perhaps this is some of the source of confusion so we’ll clarify again, the 290 number is to scan for contaminants, the lower number being used for the anavar itself. Nothing about that is abnormal.

Also, I’m not sure your point about column length and mobile phase, these have obvious effects on plenty of things, retention time, wavelength, etc. If you frequently use unique mobile phases or tailored ones you’d notice a lot of that changes even if you just go from a C4 to C18 column, for example.

Alice, Alice, Alice.

You are claiming a peak of Anavar at 240 nm had an area of 350 000. This is a test where 200nm and 240 nm is used

https://imgur.com/uj97dvQ

You can see that the pink peak (240 nm) is barely noticeable, while the black one, at 200 nm is glorious and visible. So who in their right mind would use the small one, when even the slightest impurity would fuck those data over and make them useless? Nobody, that’s who. And you can’t avoid impurities in caps and pills. Especially with an unoptimized isocratic method that you claim to use (

https://imgur.com/e4VEWTF

).
5um column - what are we, in the stone age?

The area at 240 nm is 18 500… Now do you dare to claim that your instrument is 20 times more sensitive?
Because I will be happy to prove that there is no UV detector in existence that is 20 times more sensitive than mine.

If you claim that absorbance of a compound that is not a ion, such as oxandrolone, changes with mobile phase and column used you are giving every chemist a good laugh. For the folks who are not chemists - EC here claims an equivalent of the following: “if you dissolve red food colouring in water, vodka and 200 proof alcohol, the red will be different color in every solution” That’s how ridiculous it is.

If changing the length of a carbon in columns changes absorbance in your opinion, you are a lost case.

I’ll leave it to other people, even undergrads are enough to tear you down for that kind of bullshit.

Most of what you’re saying isn’t true. Mobile phase and column length absolutely affects various factors when conducting HPLC. If you think that altering these numbers doesn’t, tell me why people use different mobile phases? Or all the other different variables when they alter small variables like mobile phase?

Also, HPLC compares against a standard. So no matter what, everything is compared against our purified lab standard regardless, in which case it’s expected and again, normal, to test at the same levels as the standard we have. If that is at 240nm and 290nm, it offers an excellent reference point.

Your equipment’s results will always vary as long as you aren’t using the exact same method and equipment, and that variance can be enough in area/peak visibility while still providing the same purity results. For those unaware, it’s like saying because your thermometer in your 100sqft house at 70 and my thermometer at 70 in my 200sqft house would perform exactly the same. The size makes a difference. Or how if I made the air more humid or less humid, that would affect it as well.

As I’ve said, I genuinely think you’re misunderstanding our methods. 240nm is a fine spot to identify Anavar with our mobile phase and equipment, and if you are claiming instead that we are simply doing a poor job, that’s far different than your initial claim.

 

[Janoshik]

EnergyControl" pid='12456' dateline='1525885506:

Most of what you’re saying isn’t true. Mobile phase and column length absolutely affects various factors when conducting HPLC. If you think that altering these numbers doesn’t, tell me why people use different mobile phases? Or all the other different variables when they alter small variables like mobile phase?

Also, HPLC compares against a standard. So no matter what, everything is compared against our purified lab standard regardless, in which case it’s expected and again, normal, to test at the same levels as the standard we have. If that is at 240nm and 290nm, it offers an excellent reference point.

Your equipment’s results will always vary as long as you aren’t using the exact same method and equipment, and that variance can be enough in area/peak visibility while still providing the same purity results. For those unaware, it’s like saying because your thermometer in your 100sqft house at 70 and my thermometer at 70 in my 200sqft house would perform exactly the same. The size makes a difference. Or how if I made the air more humid or less humid, that would affect it as well.

As I’ve said, I genuinely think you’re misunderstanding our methods. 240nm is a fine spot to identify Anavar with our mobile phase and equipment, and if you are claiming instead that we are simply doing a poor job, that’s far different than your initial claim.

To affect retention and selectivity, not absorbance, you amateur.

You are clueless.

Relative absorbance is also a universal quality. 0.1 absorbance solution will be the same here and in the US. Can the area change? Yes. Can it change 20% between labs/methods etc? Absolutely. Can it change 20 times? lol no.

I’ll ignore the lies above and will ask you another question about your method.

You claim to use Luna 250*4.6 mm 5um column.

https://imgur.com/e4VEWTF

What is the void volume of such a column? Approximately (2.90 ml) ( reference: http://www.chiralizer.com/colvol.htm )

You claim to use flow of 0.5 ml / minute. That would make one assume that the mobile phase takes 6 minutes to pass to the detector.

So, the T(0) is 6 minutes. T(R) is retention time of oxandrolone - if your method lasts 12 minutes as you claim, let’s say the maximum retention would be 10 minutes.

Now, this is the equation to calculate K prime, also known as capacity factor: k1 = (T(R) - T(0)) / T(0)

k1 = 4/6

k1 = 1.5

Now, what does the article say about that?

“Many regulatory agencies (e.g. FDA) require that K prime values for HPLC separations be equal to or greater than 2.0 to meet Specificity acceptance criteria (System Suitability/Method Validation). After all, if it elutes at or near the void volume, then your method is not specific for anything. Besides being unscientific in design, your method will fail System Suitability and fail validation. IOW: It does not meet this basic requirement.”

Tldr; your method is verifiable to be incorrect and cannot supply correct data. Not like it matters when it’s fake, but still

Will you try to talk your way out of this?

Are the websites on the interenet biased against you too?

Still waiting for the quick google search.

 

[EnergyControl]

Janoshik" pid='12459' dateline='1525886435:

EnergyControl" pid='12456' dateline='1525885506:

Most of what you’re saying isn’t true. Mobile phase and column length absolutely affects various factors when conducting HPLC. If you think that altering these numbers doesn’t, tell me why people use different mobile phases? Or all the other different variables when they alter small variables like mobile phase?

Also, HPLC compares against a standard. So no matter what, everything is compared against our purified lab standard regardless, in which case it’s expected and again, normal, to test at the same levels as the standard we have. If that is at 240nm and 290nm, it offers an excellent reference point.

Your equipment’s results will always vary as long as you aren’t using the exact same method and equipment, and that variance can be enough in area/peak visibility while still providing the same purity results. For those unaware, it’s like saying because your thermometer in your 100sqft house at 70 and my thermometer at 70 in my 200sqft house would perform exactly the same. The size makes a difference. Or how if I made the air more humid or less humid, that would affect it as well.

As I’ve said, I genuinely think you’re misunderstanding our methods. 240nm is a fine spot to identify Anavar with our mobile phase and equipment, and if you are claiming instead that we are simply doing a poor job, that’s far different than your initial claim.

To affect retention and selectivity, not absorbance, you amateur.

You are clueless.

Relative absorbance is also a universal quality. 0.1 absorbance solution will be the same here and in the US. Can the area change? Yes. Can it change 20% between labs/methods etc? Absolutely. Can it change 20 times? lol no.

I’ll ignore the lies above and will ask you another question about your method.

You claim to use Luna 250*4.6 mm 5um column.

https://imgur.com/e4VEWTF

What is the void volume of such a column? Approximately (2.90 ml) ( reference: http://www.chiralizer.com/colvol.htm )

You claim to use flow of 0.5 ml / minute. That would make one assume that the mobile phase takes 6 minutes to pass to the detector.

So, the T(0) is 6 minutes. T(R) is retention time of oxandrolone - if your method lasts 12 minutes as you claim, let’s say the maximum retention would be 10 minutes.

Now, this is the equation to calculate K prime, also known as capacity factor: k1 = (T(R) - T(0)) / T(0)

k1 = 4/6

k1 = 1.5

Now, what does the article say about that?

“Many regulatory agencies (e.g. FDA) require that K prime values for HPLC separations be equal to or greater than 2.0 to meet Specificity acceptance criteria (System Suitability/Method Validation). After all, if it elutes at or near the void volume, then your method is not specific for anything. Besides being unscientific in design, your method will fail System Suitability and fail validation. IOW: It does not meet this basic requirement.”

Tldr; your method is verifiable to be incorrect and cannot supply correct data. Not like it matters when it’s fake, but still

Will you try to talk your way out of this?

Are the websites on the interenet biased against you too?

Still waiting for the quick google search.

As daunting as this may appear to non-chemists, what you’re saying doesn’t actually invalidate our results by any means, it simply attacks the accuracy (and poorly so with assumptions and numbers that are less intimidating than those aware would consider). We are confident in our accuracy, hence our eagerness to have other analyzers confirm our results. Not to mention, we’ve had PLENTY of blind samples sent to us that we’ve identified accurately. How do you suppose we do that?

Care to inform the community what a K prime value of close to 2 means, in comparison to say, exactly 2?

Still waiting for you to do literally anything other than entirely ignore the claim of fraud made against you pages and pages ago. You’re attacking accuracy of methods but ignoring a returned package, unopened, that you “tested”?

 

[Janoshik]

EnergyControl" pid='12462' dateline='1525887113:

Janoshik" pid='12459' dateline='1525886435:

EnergyControl" pid='12456' dateline='1525885506:

Most of what you’re saying isn’t true. Mobile phase and column length absolutely affects various factors when conducting HPLC. If you think that altering these numbers doesn’t, tell me why people use different mobile phases? Or all the other different variables when they alter small variables like mobile phase?

Also, HPLC compares against a standard. So no matter what, everything is compared against our purified lab standard regardless, in which case it’s expected and again, normal, to test at the same levels as the standard we have. If that is at 240nm and 290nm, it offers an excellent reference point.

Your equipment’s results will always vary as long as you aren’t using the exact same method and equipment, and that variance can be enough in area/peak visibility while still providing the same purity results. For those unaware, it’s like saying because your thermometer in your 100sqft house at 70 and my thermometer at 70 in my 200sqft house would perform exactly the same. The size makes a difference. Or how if I made the air more humid or less humid, that would affect it as well.

As I’ve said, I genuinely think you’re misunderstanding our methods. 240nm is a fine spot to identify Anavar with our mobile phase and equipment, and if you are claiming instead that we are simply doing a poor job, that’s far different than your initial claim.

To affect retention and selectivity, not absorbance, you amateur.

You are clueless.

Relative absorbance is also a universal quality. 0.1 absorbance solution will be the same here and in the US. Can the area change? Yes. Can it change 20% between labs/methods etc? Absolutely. Can it change 20 times? lol no.

I’ll ignore the lies above and will ask you another question about your method.

You claim to use Luna 250*4.6 mm 5um column.

https://imgur.com/e4VEWTF

What is the void volume of such a column? Approximately (2.90 ml) ( reference: http://www.chiralizer.com/colvol.htm )

You claim to use flow of 0.5 ml / minute. That would make one assume that the mobile phase takes 6 minutes to pass to the detector.

So, the T(0) is 6 minutes. T(R) is retention time of oxandrolone - if your method lasts 12 minutes as you claim, let’s say the maximum retention would be 10 minutes.

Now, this is the equation to calculate K prime, also known as capacity factor: k1 = (T(R) - T(0)) / T(0)

k1 = 4/6

k1 = 1.5

Now, what does the article say about that?

“Many regulatory agencies (e.g. FDA) require that K prime values for HPLC separations be equal to or greater than 2.0 to meet Specificity acceptance criteria (System Suitability/Method Validation). After all, if it elutes at or near the void volume, then your method is not specific for anything. Besides being unscientific in design, your method will fail System Suitability and fail validation. IOW: It does not meet this basic requirement.”

Tldr; your method is verifiable to be incorrect and cannot supply correct data. Not like it matters when it’s fake, but still

Will you try to talk your way out of this?

Are the websites on the interenet biased against you too?

Still waiting for the quick google search.

As daunting as this may appear to non-chemists, what you’re saying doesn’t actually invalidate our results by any means, it simply attacks the accuracy (and poorly so with assumptions and numbers that are less intimidating than those aware would consider). We are confident in our accuracy, hence our eagerness to have other analyzers confirm our results. Not to mention, we’ve had PLENTY of blind samples sent to us that we’ve identified accurately. How do you suppose we do that?

Care to inform the community what a K prime value of close to 2 means, in comparison to say, exactly 2?

Still waiting for you to do literally anything other than entirely ignore the claim of fraud made against you pages and pages ago. You’re attacking accuracy of methods but ignoring a returned package, unopened, that you “tested”?

K prime of 2 means that the sample has minimal retention necessary for a quality method. Why?

 

[EnergyControl]

Janoshik" pid='12463' dateline='1525887296:

EnergyControl" pid='12462' dateline='1525887113:

Janoshik" pid='12459' dateline='1525886435:

EnergyControl" pid='12456' dateline='1525885506:

Most of what you’re saying isn’t true. Mobile phase and column length absolutely affects various factors when conducting HPLC. If you think that altering these numbers doesn’t, tell me why people use different mobile phases? Or all the other different variables when they alter small variables like mobile phase?

Also, HPLC compares against a standard. So no matter what, everything is compared against our purified lab standard regardless, in which case it’s expected and again, normal, to test at the same levels as the standard we have. If that is at 240nm and 290nm, it offers an excellent reference point.

Your equipment’s results will always vary as long as you aren’t using the exact same method and equipment, and that variance can be enough in area/peak visibility while still providing the same purity results. For those unaware, it’s like saying because your thermometer in your 100sqft house at 70 and my thermometer at 70 in my 200sqft house would perform exactly the same. The size makes a difference. Or how if I made the air more humid or less humid, that would affect it as well.

As I’ve said, I genuinely think you’re misunderstanding our methods. 240nm is a fine spot to identify Anavar with our mobile phase and equipment, and if you are claiming instead that we are simply doing a poor job, that’s far different than your initial claim.

To affect retention and selectivity, not absorbance, you amateur.

You are clueless.

Relative absorbance is also a universal quality. 0.1 absorbance solution will be the same here and in the US. Can the area change? Yes. Can it change 20% between labs/methods etc? Absolutely. Can it change 20 times? lol no.

I’ll ignore the lies above and will ask you another question about your method.

You claim to use Luna 250*4.6 mm 5um column.

https://imgur.com/e4VEWTF

What is the void volume of such a column? Approximately (2.90 ml) ( reference: http://www.chiralizer.com/colvol.htm )

You claim to use flow of 0.5 ml / minute. That would make one assume that the mobile phase takes 6 minutes to pass to the detector.

So, the T(0) is 6 minutes. T(R) is retention time of oxandrolone - if your method lasts 12 minutes as you claim, let’s say the maximum retention would be 10 minutes.

Now, this is the equation to calculate K prime, also known as capacity factor: k1 = (T(R) - T(0)) / T(0)

k1 = 4/6

k1 = 1.5

Now, what does the article say about that?

“Many regulatory agencies (e.g. FDA) require that K prime values for HPLC separations be equal to or greater than 2.0 to meet Specificity acceptance criteria (System Suitability/Method Validation). After all, if it elutes at or near the void volume, then your method is not specific for anything. Besides being unscientific in design, your method will fail System Suitability and fail validation. IOW: It does not meet this basic requirement.”

Tldr; your method is verifiable to be incorrect and cannot supply correct data. Not like it matters when it’s fake, but still

Will you try to talk your way out of this?

Are the websites on the interenet biased against you too?

Still waiting for the quick google search.

As daunting as this may appear to non-chemists, what you’re saying doesn’t actually invalidate our results by any means, it simply attacks the accuracy (and poorly so with assumptions and numbers that are less intimidating than those aware would consider). We are confident in our accuracy, hence our eagerness to have other analyzers confirm our results. Not to mention, we’ve had PLENTY of blind samples sent to us that we’ve identified accurately. How do you suppose we do that?

Care to inform the community what a K prime value of close to 2 means, in comparison to say, exactly 2?

Still waiting for you to do literally anything other than entirely ignore the claim of fraud made against you pages and pages ago. You’re attacking accuracy of methods but ignoring a returned package, unopened, that you “tested”?

K prime of 2 means that the sample has minimal retention necessary for a quality method. Why?

I was basically pointing out that if 2.0 is industry acceptable, if we’re close to it then we’re performing relatively accurately. It’s like if a vendor here sells Test E advertised at 250mg but tests at 223mg, we wouldn’t completely toss them aside — it’s still relatively accurate.

I know our results are solid and we have done a lot of tests with happy customers to prove that. Maybe your methods are slightly more strict and accurate, maybe they’re just different, but I know we consistently test blind samples with accuracy and do our best at ensuring that.

 

[Janoshik]

EnergyControl" pid='12464' dateline='1525887568:

Janoshik" pid='12463' dateline='1525887296:

EnergyControl" pid='12462' dateline='1525887113:

Janoshik" pid='12459' dateline='1525886435:

EnergyControl" pid='12456' dateline='1525885506:

Most of what you’re saying isn’t true. Mobile phase and column length absolutely affects various factors when conducting HPLC. If you think that altering these numbers doesn’t, tell me why people use different mobile phases? Or all the other different variables when they alter small variables like mobile phase?

Also, HPLC compares against a standard. So no matter what, everything is compared against our purified lab standard regardless, in which case it’s expected and again, normal, to test at the same levels as the standard we have. If that is at 240nm and 290nm, it offers an excellent reference point.

Your equipment’s results will always vary as long as you aren’t using the exact same method and equipment, and that variance can be enough in area/peak visibility while still providing the same purity results. For those unaware, it’s like saying because your thermometer in your 100sqft house at 70 and my thermometer at 70 in my 200sqft house would perform exactly the same. The size makes a difference. Or how if I made the air more humid or less humid, that would affect it as well.

As I’ve said, I genuinely think you’re misunderstanding our methods. 240nm is a fine spot to identify Anavar with our mobile phase and equipment, and if you are claiming instead that we are simply doing a poor job, that’s far different than your initial claim.

To affect retention and selectivity, not absorbance, you amateur.

You are clueless.

Relative absorbance is also a universal quality. 0.1 absorbance solution will be the same here and in the US. Can the area change? Yes. Can it change 20% between labs/methods etc? Absolutely. Can it change 20 times? lol no.

I’ll ignore the lies above and will ask you another question about your method.

You claim to use Luna 250*4.6 mm 5um column.

https://imgur.com/e4VEWTF

What is the void volume of such a column? Approximately (2.90 ml) ( reference: http://www.chiralizer.com/colvol.htm )

You claim to use flow of 0.5 ml / minute. That would make one assume that the mobile phase takes 6 minutes to pass to the detector.

So, the T(0) is 6 minutes. T(R) is retention time of oxandrolone - if your method lasts 12 minutes as you claim, let’s say the maximum retention would be 10 minutes.

Now, this is the equation to calculate K prime, also known as capacity factor: k1 = (T(R) - T(0)) / T(0)

k1 = 4/6

k1 = 1.5

Now, what does the article say about that?

“Many regulatory agencies (e.g. FDA) require that K prime values for HPLC separations be equal to or greater than 2.0 to meet Specificity acceptance criteria (System Suitability/Method Validation). After all, if it elutes at or near the void volume, then your method is not specific for anything. Besides being unscientific in design, your method will fail System Suitability and fail validation. IOW: It does not meet this basic requirement.”

Tldr; your method is verifiable to be incorrect and cannot supply correct data. Not like it matters when it’s fake, but still

Will you try to talk your way out of this?

Are the websites on the interenet biased against you too?

Still waiting for the quick google search.

As daunting as this may appear to non-chemists, what you’re saying doesn’t actually invalidate our results by any means, it simply attacks the accuracy (and poorly so with assumptions and numbers that are less intimidating than those aware would consider). We are confident in our accuracy, hence our eagerness to have other analyzers confirm our results. Not to mention, we’ve had PLENTY of blind samples sent to us that we’ve identified accurately. How do you suppose we do that?

Care to inform the community what a K prime value of close to 2 means, in comparison to say, exactly 2?

Still waiting for you to do literally anything other than entirely ignore the claim of fraud made against you pages and pages ago. You’re attacking accuracy of methods but ignoring a returned package, unopened, that you “tested”?

K prime of 2 means that the sample has minimal retention necessary for a quality method. Why?

I was basically pointing out that if 2.0 is industry acceptable, if we’re close to it then we’re performing relatively accurately. It’s like if a vendor here sells Test E advertised at 250mg but tests at 223mg, we wouldn’t completely toss them aside — it’s still relatively accurate.

I know our results are solid and we have done a lot of tests with happy customers to prove that. Maybe your methods are slightly more strict and accurate, maybe they’re just different, but I know we consistently test blind samples with accuracy and do our best at ensuring that.

It’s industry minimum and it’s for the first peak of interest (including contaminations) - therefore if you are at 2 for your target analyte, then you are not able to discern contamination properly. Frankly, I wouldn’t call it relatively accurate.

To put it this way - your method is 12 minutes long and the actual analysis starts at 10 minutes.
You use terribly inappropriate wavelength, which you can’t document being used by anybody else in the world.

I honestly am on verge. Either you are faking those data as well or you are unable to provide results with any reasonable quality.

That’s my honest assessment and I don’t know which is worse. I apologize, but that’s the way I see it.

 

[EnergyControl]

Janoshik" pid='12470' dateline='1525888909:

EnergyControl" pid='12464' dateline='1525887568:

Janoshik" pid='12463' dateline='1525887296:

EnergyControl" pid='12462' dateline='1525887113:

Janoshik" pid='12459' dateline='1525886435:

To affect retention and selectivity, not absorbance, you amateur.

You are clueless.

Relative absorbance is also a universal quality. 0.1 absorbance solution will be the same here and in the US. Can the area change? Yes. Can it change 20% between labs/methods etc? Absolutely. Can it change 20 times? lol no.

I’ll ignore the lies above and will ask you another question about your method.

You claim to use Luna 250*4.6 mm 5um column.

https://imgur.com/e4VEWTF

What is the void volume of such a column? Approximately (2.90 ml) ( reference: http://www.chiralizer.com/colvol.htm )

You claim to use flow of 0.5 ml / minute. That would make one assume that the mobile phase takes 6 minutes to pass to the detector.

So, the T(0) is 6 minutes. T(R) is retention time of oxandrolone - if your method lasts 12 minutes as you claim, let’s say the maximum retention would be 10 minutes.

Now, this is the equation to calculate K prime, also known as capacity factor: k1 = (T(R) - T(0)) / T(0)

k1 = 4/6

k1 = 1.5

Now, what does the article say about that?

“Many regulatory agencies (e.g. FDA) require that K prime values for HPLC separations be equal to or greater than 2.0 to meet Specificity acceptance criteria (System Suitability/Method Validation). After all, if it elutes at or near the void volume, then your method is not specific for anything. Besides being unscientific in design, your method will fail System Suitability and fail validation. IOW: It does not meet this basic requirement.”

Tldr; your method is verifiable to be incorrect and cannot supply correct data. Not like it matters when it’s fake, but still

Will you try to talk your way out of this?

Are the websites on the interenet biased against you too?

Still waiting for the quick google search.

As daunting as this may appear to non-chemists, what you’re saying doesn’t actually invalidate our results by any means, it simply attacks the accuracy (and poorly so with assumptions and numbers that are less intimidating than those aware would consider). We are confident in our accuracy, hence our eagerness to have other analyzers confirm our results. Not to mention, we’ve had PLENTY of blind samples sent to us that we’ve identified accurately. How do you suppose we do that?

Care to inform the community what a K prime value of close to 2 means, in comparison to say, exactly 2?

Still waiting for you to do literally anything other than entirely ignore the claim of fraud made against you pages and pages ago. You’re attacking accuracy of methods but ignoring a returned package, unopened, that you “tested”?

K prime of 2 means that the sample has minimal retention necessary for a quality method. Why?

I was basically pointing out that if 2.0 is industry acceptable, if we’re close to it then we’re performing relatively accurately. It’s like if a vendor here sells Test E advertised at 250mg but tests at 223mg, we wouldn’t completely toss them aside — it’s still relatively accurate.

I know our results are solid and we have done a lot of tests with happy customers to prove that. Maybe your methods are slightly more strict and accurate, maybe they’re just different, but I know we consistently test blind samples with accuracy and do our best at ensuring that.

It’s industry minimum and it’s for the first peak of interest (including contaminations) - therefore if you are at 2 for your target analyte, then you are not able to discern contamination properly. Frankly, I wouldn’t call it relatively accurate.

To put it this way - your method is 12 minutes long and the actual analysis starts at 10 minutes.
You use terribly inappropriate wavelength, which you can’t document being used by anybody else in the world.

I honestly am on verge. Either you are faking those data as well or you are unable to provide results with any reasonable quality.

That’s my honest assessment and I don’t know which is worse. I apologize, but that’s the way I see it.

We definitely aren’t faking results, that’s why we push that people only send blind samples. Also, while our Oxandrolone wavelength in this instance may have been lsss than ideal in your opinion based on your experience, the wavelengths we use for oils and almost all other orals are very normal (240-245nm for most finished oils as an example). If anything isn’t optimized, we’re definitely open to improvement always.

 

[Janoshik]

EnergyControl" pid='12477' dateline='1525889775:

Janoshik" pid='12470' dateline='1525888909:

EnergyControl" pid='12464' dateline='1525887568:

Janoshik" pid='12463' dateline='1525887296:

EnergyControl" pid='12462' dateline='1525887113:

As daunting as this may appear to non-chemists, what you’re saying doesn’t actually invalidate our results by any means, it simply attacks the accuracy (and poorly so with assumptions and numbers that are less intimidating than those aware would consider). We are confident in our accuracy, hence our eagerness to have other analyzers confirm our results. Not to mention, we’ve had PLENTY of blind samples sent to us that we’ve identified accurately. How do you suppose we do that?

Care to inform the community what a K prime value of close to 2 means, in comparison to say, exactly 2?

Still waiting for you to do literally anything other than entirely ignore the claim of fraud made against you pages and pages ago. You’re attacking accuracy of methods but ignoring a returned package, unopened, that you “tested”?

K prime of 2 means that the sample has minimal retention necessary for a quality method. Why?

I was basically pointing out that if 2.0 is industry acceptable, if we’re close to it then we’re performing relatively accurately. It’s like if a vendor here sells Test E advertised at 250mg but tests at 223mg, we wouldn’t completely toss them aside — it’s still relatively accurate.

I know our results are solid and we have done a lot of tests with happy customers to prove that. Maybe your methods are slightly more strict and accurate, maybe they’re just different, but I know we consistently test blind samples with accuracy and do our best at ensuring that.

It’s industry minimum and it’s for the first peak of interest (including contaminations) - therefore if you are at 2 for your target analyte, then you are not able to discern contamination properly. Frankly, I wouldn’t call it relatively accurate.

To put it this way - your method is 12 minutes long and the actual analysis starts at 10 minutes.
You use terribly inappropriate wavelength, which you can’t document being used by anybody else in the world.

I honestly am on verge. Either you are faking those data as well or you are unable to provide results with any reasonable quality.

That’s my honest assessment and I don’t know which is worse. I apologize, but that’s the way I see it.

We definitely aren’t faking results, that’s why we push that people only send blind samples. Also, while our Oxandrolone wavelength in this instance may have been lsss than ideal in your opinion based on your experience, the wavelengths we use for oils and almost all other orals are very normal (240-245nm for most finished oils as an example). If anything isn’t optimized, we’re definitely open to improvement always.

Oxandrolone is one of the very FEW anabolic steroids that do not absorb at 240 nm.

Also the matter of you faking the data or not and them being of any meaningful quality is now left to the community.

You will be put under scrutiny by everyone and people will not (and shouldn’t) be satisfied with any questionable or missing data.

 

[EnergyControl]

Janoshik" pid='12478' dateline='1525890226:

EnergyControl" pid='12477' dateline='1525889775:

Janoshik" pid='12470' dateline='1525888909:

EnergyControl" pid='12464' dateline='1525887568:

Janoshik" pid='12463' dateline='1525887296:

K prime of 2 means that the sample has minimal retention necessary for a quality method. Why?

I was basically pointing out that if 2.0 is industry acceptable, if we’re close to it then we’re performing relatively accurately. It’s like if a vendor here sells Test E advertised at 250mg but tests at 223mg, we wouldn’t completely toss them aside — it’s still relatively accurate.

I know our results are solid and we have done a lot of tests with happy customers to prove that. Maybe your methods are slightly more strict and accurate, maybe they’re just different, but I know we consistently test blind samples with accuracy and do our best at ensuring that.

It’s industry minimum and it’s for the first peak of interest (including contaminations) - therefore if you are at 2 for your target analyte, then you are not able to discern contamination properly. Frankly, I wouldn’t call it relatively accurate.

To put it this way - your method is 12 minutes long and the actual analysis starts at 10 minutes.
You use terribly inappropriate wavelength, which you can’t document being used by anybody else in the world.

I honestly am on verge. Either you are faking those data as well or you are unable to provide results with any reasonable quality.

That’s my honest assessment and I don’t know which is worse. I apologize, but that’s the way I see it.

We definitely aren’t faking results, that’s why we push that people only send blind samples. Also, while our Oxandrolone wavelength in this instance may have been lsss than ideal in your opinion based on your experience, the wavelengths we use for oils and almost all other orals are very normal (240-245nm for most finished oils as an example). If anything isn’t optimized, we’re definitely open to improvement always.

Oxandrolone is one of the very FEW anabolic steroids that do not absorb at 240 nm.

I might be misinterpreting you, but I had just meant that 240-245nm is what we use for most finished oils and orals and in those cases it’s very normal, but like you have explained in the oxandrolone instance it’s definitely one where we have room for improvement and in the future will ensure a lower wavelength used for our var tests. If there’s ever anything like that we always just want to improve.

 

[Janoshik]

EnergyControl" pid='12481' dateline='1525890426:

Janoshik" pid='12478' dateline='1525890226:

EnergyControl" pid='12477' dateline='1525889775:

Janoshik" pid='12470' dateline='1525888909:

EnergyControl" pid='12464' dateline='1525887568:

I was basically pointing out that if 2.0 is industry acceptable, if we’re close to it then we’re performing relatively accurately. It’s like if a vendor here sells Test E advertised at 250mg but tests at 223mg, we wouldn’t completely toss them aside — it’s still relatively accurate.

I know our results are solid and we have done a lot of tests with happy customers to prove that. Maybe your methods are slightly more strict and accurate, maybe they’re just different, but I know we consistently test blind samples with accuracy and do our best at ensuring that.

It’s industry minimum and it’s for the first peak of interest (including contaminations) - therefore if you are at 2 for your target analyte, then you are not able to discern contamination properly. Frankly, I wouldn’t call it relatively accurate.

To put it this way - your method is 12 minutes long and the actual analysis starts at 10 minutes.
You use terribly inappropriate wavelength, which you can’t document being used by anybody else in the world.

I honestly am on verge. Either you are faking those data as well or you are unable to provide results with any reasonable quality.

That’s my honest assessment and I don’t know which is worse. I apologize, but that’s the way I see it.

We definitely aren’t faking results, that’s why we push that people only send blind samples. Also, while our Oxandrolone wavelength in this instance may have been lsss than ideal in your opinion based on your experience, the wavelengths we use for oils and almost all other orals are very normal (240-245nm for most finished oils as an example). If anything isn’t optimized, we’re definitely open to improvement always.

Oxandrolone is one of the very FEW anabolic steroids that do not absorb at 240 nm.

I might be misinterpreting you, but I had just meant that 240-245nm is what we use for most finished oils and orals and in those cases it’s very normal, but like you have explained in the oxandrolone instance it’s definitely one where we have room for improvement and in the future will ensure a lower wavelength used for our var tests. If there’s ever anything like that we always just want to improve.

Yes, I agree with you in the previous post.

Let me rephrase myself:
Oxandrolone is one of the very FEW anabolic steroids that do not absorb at 240 nm but the majority of other steroids do, therefore it is proper for 240 nm to be used for them.

 

[Atexus]

I don’t think that anything posted in the last 3-5 hours will change the minds of any prospective clients for either of you. This will simply be tit for tat, above the heads of all your clients, until one of you decided to allow the other the last word.

To be honest, I feel like the last post by each of you are the closest to amicable either of you will get.

Also, I have orders out for testing with both of you, and (as a customer) I’d prefer you spend your time getting testing done for me (and us on the boards) instead of arguing column length with each other for 5 hours

 

[Arms_Length]

Atexus" pid='12484' dateline='1525890508:

I don’t think that anything posted in the last 3-5 hours will change the minds of any prospective clients for either of you. This will simply be tit for tat, above the heads of all your clients, until one of you decided to allow the other the last word.

To be honest, I feel like the last post by each of you are the closest to amicable either of you will get.

Also, I have orders out for testing with both of you, and (as a customer) I’d prefer you spend your time getting testing done for me (and us on the boards) instead of arguing column length with each other for 5 hours

Okay, if people want to send thier money to someone who gave out fraudulent data then go for it. Sure they gave blamed it on “the new guy” but even if that story was true they continued to try and hide it until today. I’d have a lot more respect for them if they came to me when they found out. I can just about always work with the truth. I could have sent another sample for testing (at thier cost) if there really was no data retained from the test.

I’m fairly certain though their was no “new guy”. I’m fairly certain that the person talking here today is the exact same one that I had convos with in email that told me the data could be provided (before ordering and paying for the test) but that they typically don’t provide it. I’ll admit, I was not concerned about the raw data because I’m not a chemist so I did not request it at first but I did request it once I got the test results as I had several people interested in the graphs.

I’m not buying it but I’d appreciate it If EC would message me in Discord to discuss.

 

[Atexus]

Arms_Length" pid='12488' dateline='1525892628:

Okay, if people want to send thier money to someone who gave out fraudulent data then go for it.

That’s my point exactly. There ARE people who will continue to do so despite what’s been said here, just as there are people who chose to still use Jano even when he got outed for testing a gh product that, according to the customer, he never actually received.

My point is that the 5 hours of advanced chemistry bickering did nothing to change anyone’s mind, other than to perhaps use analyzer (if he returns) as opposed to either of these two. Not one POSITIVE thing came out of that argument for either of them. So my point to them was to just drop it and put that time and energy toward their individual businesses and clientele and let the chips fall where they will.

 

[Bluesec]

Thread is locked. A choice has been made as to the fate of EnergyControl. Please see announcements page.