posted Thu, 06/26/2014 - 09:12
11072
+ 21 Big Ds tren a mass specs...
ad
Not much to say about this one...I'm pretty disapointed though.
- Bookmark
- 21
- 0
Not much to say about this one...I'm pretty disapointed though.
Now maybe you should apologize to 99 for calling him a "fucking liar".
Anonand i did just that on my si dude, who the fuck are you his mom. I can say im wrong if i am, i dont need you to stick your head in. Who the fuck are you anyways
See, there you again. One step forward, two steps back.
You want to know who I am? None of your goddamn business, that's who.
You should let the source handle his business not lecture him on how his character should be. You are instigating him and you know it. Im out say what you want.
No, I was pointing out to him how going off the hook is not beneficial to him or anyone. I have seen D do right when things go wrong but he still tends to follow the same path of freaking out, calling names and then back tracking when he realizes he is wrong. Now the damage control is doubled. He will have to fix the situation with the guys that had the problem but even worse the legions of guys reading his rants that will now never be buying from him.
All sources should realize, for every one of us that will actively communicate there are at least 50 (conservatively) that just lurk and watch.
Agreed...
So if it's not Tren, what does the other 86% of raw materials consist of?
And should it be cause for concern?
AnonIf that's how it works then I'm wrong and you deserve an apology.
I was under the impression that dosing and purity were contingent on each other. Lower purity raws means more raws have to be added to recipe to achieve desired/listed concentrations. Yes you will still have a lower purity product but dosage will be more accurate by doing this. That again like I said was the impression that I was under. I'm not a brewer so my understanding of these techniques are elementary. Sorry for questioning the Labs.
angusYou are correct in your thinking but you are talking active pharmaceutical ingredient. If a source wants to reach 100% concentration of API and their gear tests at 20% purity then, yeah, they need to use 5x the amount of powder than someone that is using 100% pure powder.
So if you want to make 100mg/ml of test P and you have:
1. 25% pure raw material, you will need to add 4g per 10ml Vial
2. 100% pure raw material, you will need to add 1g per 10ml vial
They both yield the same result.
You don't need to apologize. I just need to increase my AI, lol. Was being a bit sensitive.
AnonThank you for that. I appreciate the clarification bro.
Give them a vote if you find it helpful.Permalinkuuuuffffff good to now you are not going on vacation anymore
zschlitz1I said f u to big d not long ago. He said " I have the best tren around"
TTBest thread all year
How many more lab tests do you all need to see that dom USA is not the way to go for steroids . Uk ftw
AnonStop it bro just stop.
68QIt is the way to go because of the testing.
TTOrrr buy from extremely reputable uk/overseas labs that come back lab after lab very high and pure . Yes more pricy but the shit works!
68QI have bought plenty from over seas that was bunk. I will stick with labs that run mass specs on their raws.
TTSounds like you don't do research . Never got anything bunk myself overseas
68QSo you should have a bunch of mass specs
+1 for testing!
I wonder what's in the other 86% of the raw...
I mean I can understand that you just have to use 7 times the raw to get the correct concentration, but that also means your getting 7 times whatever is in that 86% mystery raw material as well...
68Qsemen
AnonPlease dont bash this guy, he simply sent gear in for testing.
No body is bashing him directly.
RustyhookerGlad these get posted.
There has been alot of mass specs going around lately maybe someone can clear this up for me.
If the purity is 13% and it's 100 mgs/ml. Does that mean your actually only getting 13 mgs of the actual hormone? And then do you still have to figure I. The ester weight or has that already been figured? A little confused. Clarification please!
AnonI'm sorry I'm outta here. I just found this one humorous.
AnonLmfao!!! That's a fucking technical term hahahahahahaha. So let me get this right. Purity is 14% yet D got the dosing about right?? Am I the only one thinking that would be extremely difficult to get this formula done blindly? Did D have access to his raw mass spec? He'd have to have to get his dosing "about right".
Ummmmmm Houston we have a fucking problem! Lol
Anonway to go dick head piss off the one guy that helps keep sources honest real fuckin brilliant
AnonPlease bro I made comments about the results on one of the countless mass spec threads and I'm the reason dude hangs it up? I been back what less than a week and I'm the reason? Wake up buddy there obviously must be a ton more going on behind the scenes then the single lab thread I commented on. Wow you give me way to much credit.
Anonya your prob rite... i kno hes helped me identify some bogus gear thru mass specs and i just really appreciate that...
angusBro, it's not his fault. It's not about being pissed off. There is just no glory in doing this, I'm just tired of fighting with people, sources. Every day I'm under a microscope and usually that is ok, I don't mind. This one got to me a little. I think I just need to take some time off. That's all. Carlos is a good guy, and I really like him. He and I used to hang on BigD's page years ago and talk smack even before the rubber knife gangster tag came about.....good times.
Anoncool... i just appreciate what you do for the community
angusSome days I fuckin hate this job. I think I need to take a month off.
Here's the deal, the concentration is always given as vague answer because the machine used is a precision instrument for testing purity. A hplc test is ideal for concentration; however, the dr can look at the ion count of the analyte and come close to determining a concentration. It's something we have asked him to do above and beyond the standard test. Since he can't be precise, down to the ion, he refuses to give a solid number. Fuck it though I'll have him not put concentration on there. Not a problem. Thank you for your concern.
In fact I'm done. Tired of it. I need a goddamn vacation.
angus, we all appreciate what you do.... greatly. Maybe, when your not slammed (probably never) you can create a stickie explaining how to read these test. Im a bit confused on tabs since a 43% was considered good and yada yada. Not that you need to explain here or at all but I think that would end a lot of this incessant bitching. thanks again man
Bro take a deep breath... Some people do not understand how to read the report or understand the testing involved here.. Come on let me buy you a beer
What's hard to understand? There is about 100mg of hormone per ml in the sample. However, the purity of the hormone is 14%. Big D dosed it correctly. It looks like he got a bad batch of Raws.
Don't wanna sound dumb but wouldn't that mean he would have to put 7times the amount of raws to get to 100mg maybe I just don't get how that all works
AnonWell I'm under the impression that when a products purity is low the cook has to add more raws to the recipe to get as close to the dosage as possible. Is that correct?
Yes he would need to add more when brewing so the user would be getting a true 100mg/ml. Without mass spec testing his Raws he would have no clue how much more to add to each batch.
AnonExactly my point. Did that happen?
RustyhookerSo that being said would mean then that 100Mg/cc strength but at 13% purity would put origional raws at 1.3% purity?
angusNo that isn't what that means. In this particular case it appears that the raw material used was of questionable purity yet the brewer used the appropriate amount of said material. Purity and concentration are very different animals and are not dependent on each other. You can have 100% purity and only have a concentration of 1mg/ml, on the flip side of that coin you can have 1% purity and 100mg/ml. They both yield the same result (1mg/ml) but have very different paths of getting there.
BillLumberghlol. I've seen that before in mass specs and always laughed at that myself. with all the graphs on different ions, protons, jimmy nuetrons and what else.. dosing seems commonly answered with the meh and a shoulder srug.
Loose_CannonSo are these mass specs of late not correct? I've talked to several ppl even several sources who question them
angusI make them up on an etch a sketch.
Lots of speculation good sir.
Loose_CannonYep
68QEasy solution. Just send samples to 2 different labs.
Loose_CannonAgreed
AnonWho knows man. I'm no expert. I'm just laughing cuz the expert said "is about right". I'd expect that from a non expert but not from the expert