Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

IBE is in TROUBLE!!!!!!!

Who Do You Support

  • IBE "Epistane"

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • RPN "Havoc"

    Votes: 1 100.0%

  • Total voters
    1
Status
Not open for further replies.
The waiting on the COC thing is total BS. Here is how you prove COC. You post the report and then show the tracking number from it being ordered from said store to said lab. That is how you show chain of custody. The testing takes longer than any COC report. In all my years of testing, NEVER have I seen a result posting held up due to some BS like this. Because, well, it's a lie. They have the tracking number from when they/lab ordered it. It's an open/shut deal. They're just using the COC issue as an excuse because 99% of the people don't understand the way labs work. I can assure you the HOUR my results are done I'll be posting them because I'll have a tracking number showing it being sent from a retailer to the lab. Of course, I still don't have a tracking number yet. Knowing my luck they will mysteriously "run out". They claim they are shipping within 24 hours, cross your fingers.

I imagine I'd have the results within 72 hours of them getting the bottle. I think it is coming from CA, so might take 4 days to get here to NC.
 
Honestly... DOes anyone even give a SHlT anymore?

I do. And I'm not even taking this stuff. 1fast400 is right about one thing: had this not been public we may never have heard about it. If the contents don't match the label to my mind that's fraud, whether intentional or otherwise. I've bought from 1fast400, I've bought from IBE. I've had good experiences with both of their products and service. But if someone is full of it on something like this, I want to know, and so do a lot of other people. Look at it this way: it's certainly more relevant than Anna Nicole Smith, takes up less time and bandwidth and might provide useful information to people here. The drama sucks, but the results are relevant to a lot of people here.

But I will tell you this: if the claims with no posted support keep flying and one or both of the currently awaited results (IBE's and 1fast's) don't get posted and this crap doesn't back down, I personally am going to be looking at people/companies I dealt with and liked before differently. Which kinda sucks.
 
The waiting on the COC thing is total BS. Here is how you prove COC. You post the report and then show the tracking number from it being ordered from said store to said lab. That is how you show chain of custody. The testing takes longer than any COC report. In all my years of testing, NEVER have I seen a result posting held up due to some BS like this. Because, well, it's a lie. They have the tracking number from when they/lab ordered it. It's an open/shut deal. They're just using the COC issue as an excuse because 99% of the people don't understand the way labs work. I can assure you the HOUR my results are done I'll be posting them because I'll have a tracking number showing it being sent from a retailer to the lab. Of course, I still don't have a tracking number yet. Knowing my luck they will mysteriously "run out". They claim they are shipping within 24 hours, cross your fingers.

I imagine I'd have the results within 72 hours of them getting the bottle. I think it is coming from CA, so might take 4 days to get here to NC.

Fair enough. One last question: the tracking numbers, are they just the tracking numbers from FedEx/UPS/USPS etc we're all used to dealing with and can plug in at the site and see the package's route, or is this some proprietery thing specific to lab controls?
 
The only thing I would think would be used would be a signature required shipment so nobody could dispute that the package was left at the door and the tamper-ninja came and switched products. While some conspiracies are out there they are at least possible so it's best to stop them before they start...All imho of course.

While I don't have chemistry testing experience and couldn't read the results to save my life I do have plenty of chain of custody and evidence handling experience :)
 
You can take the MW of a compound and compare it to what it SHOULD be...There are other compounds that could possibly share the same MW, hence the inability to say 100% it is compound A.

The double peaks have been explained and all you've done is prove that havoc contains 100% of the REAL active.

Lots of psuedo-science and double-talk going on...I doubt this test is going to end this.
 
But this is a bit disingenuous in my view. Steroids are illegal, specifically named or listed in the control act or not. They always were, and some clever nomenclature/marketing and lack of enforcement let a grey market exist until the government cracked down. The same market though smaller still obviously exists and some of the previous popular substances are specifically named now, the wording of the act has been strengthened, but as far as I can see legally we're essentially in the same boat now as before.

exactly mike mcandeles portrays himself as holyier than thou . as like he is totally innocent to selling grey area steroids,so what if they were not quite illegal or not. does this make it ok. do i smell hypocrite. :fool2:
 
exactly mm portrays himself as holyier than thou . as like he is totally innocent to selling grey area steroids,so what if they were not quite illegal or not. does this make it ok. do i smell hypocrite. :fool2:

He's also the only one who has given someone tangible evidence, emails and contact information for a lab, to back himself up. As a person who is also more than capable of being a holier than though ******* (check some of my political debate threads) I can't rightly call him on that even if I saw it in his posts. Which I don't to be honest.

I see a guy like me who gets hot under the collar sometimes, strangles a kitten and then feels better. Or maybe that's just my coping technique. And to be honest in the last thread where this was discussed I was going to flip out if I read one more post accusing him of intending to tamper with the produts when he made it clear, more than enough times, that he wasn't ever going to even get to touch the stuff.

Either way it's all wankery until someone posts test results, and then we can all hop on wiki for a few minutes and try and educate ourselves on the subject of mass spectrometry while the people who already do know it engage in even more debate as to what the results mean. Should be a reasonable simulacrum of what used to happen when I showed up for economics class drunk on jaegermeister.
 
I agree CDB but do you even think THESE results will be posted? Throughout all of these pages of musdlinging, name calling and myriad other BS (including people saying that they HAVE tests), only a select few have seen ANYTHING.
 
People will believe what they want to believe regardless. these types of people will find fault in something to justify their stance. IBE could be shown to be 100% clear and people will call foul play or they could be shown to be completely dishonest and people will still rally for them.

You have to go with what you know, believe and what's in your gut because in the end when it's all said and done the only person that makes the decision is you.
 
People will believe what they want to believe regardless. these types of people will find fault in something to justify their stance. IBE could be shown to be 100% clear and people will call foul play or they could be shown to be completely dishonest and people will still rally for them.

You have to go with what you know, believe and what's in your gut because in the end when it's all said and done the only person that makes the decision is you.

:goodpost: I completely agree.
 
Am I correct in my thinking that these tests (because there's no reference standard) will only give an overview which is then interpreted? If that's the case, then this will go nowhere because different people will have different interpretations. So far, this seems to be the case.
 
I agree CDB but do you even think THESE results will be posted? Throughout all of these pages of musdlinging, name calling and myriad other BS (including people saying that they HAVE tests), only a select few have seen ANYTHING.

Yup, but since 1fast400 did post the emails,\ after forwarding them to Jay and him confirming he got them to review, and since anyone can call that lab and confirm the testing, well it seems he's got more credibility on his side than anyone else so far.

Am I correct in my thinking that these tests (because there's no reference standard) will only give an overview which is then interpreted? If that's the case, then this will go nowhere because different people will have different interpretations. So far, this seems to be the case.

Perhaps. They will confirm what 1fast400 is saying about Epistane though. Even though it could many things of the same molecular weight, if the mw doesn't match the mw that it's supposed to then what's in the pills is not what's listed on the label. It still may work, hell it might be better than what's listed. But it would still prove the deviation.

As for the double peak claim and elution and all that, I don't know diddly about that so I don't know if there's a definitive way to find out what's what, assuming it ever gets posted. And since I don't know I'd rather not give a wiki answer on that one. The mw though should be simple eliminative logic. What's on the label should weight X, and if it weighs significantly more or less than X, well then there's a problem.

Hell I may even be wrong on that for all I know at this point. We'll see. And we should see. Making this debate public was a great service to anyone who takes any of these products, and those who don't. And this little microcosm of how policing on the market works is, well, fun for me. I like economics.:woohoo:
 
Am I correct in my thinking that these tests (because there's no reference standard) will only give an overview which is then interpreted? ...

No. Everything is unknown at some point, how do you think a standard ever comes to be? There are different test methods used to confirm structure. It's time you guys stated learning so you can see for yourselves and will not be forced to just "trust" people. Facts are facts. I'm about to teach you how. Here is an objective and basic definition and starter for doing this. You will be seeing results at some point soon and this issue will finally be clear once and for all. ;)



Reading Lab Results, Part I: FTIR

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometry (FTIR or just IR): Theory

Infrared spectrometry (IR) is used to probe the characteristic vibrations of molecules, crystals, and glasses. As for all spectrometry, the energy at which the bands appear depends on the properties of the molecules, while the magnitudes of the individual bands can be used to determine concentrations. In infrared spectrometry, it is customary to present the spectra as a plot of %T (transmittance) versus wavenumber, cm-1. The wavelength at which energy is absorbed depends on the identity of the atoms in a molecule, the molecular structure and the bonding between the atoms. The spectrum of energy absorption due to excitation of molecular vibrations is quite sensitive to differences in structure.

Each chemical bond acts like a spring connecting two atoms with masses M1 and M2. The spring is a Hooke's law spring. This name indicates that the spring exerts a force that is directly proportional to the distance through which it is compressed or expanded from its resting position. Algebraically stated,

Force = -k [delta]X

Where k is a constant and [delta]X the distance moved from the resting position, Xo. The negative sign means that the force tends to pull the spring back to where it started. When the spring is compressed, it exerts a force to expand. When the spring is stretched, it exerts a force to pull back. A set of masses that are connected by the spring naturally tend to settle into a specific motion when agitated. The masses vibrate with a frequency that depends on the masses and strengths of the spring. If k becomes larger, which means that the spring becomes stiffer, then the natural frequency rises; the vibration is faster. Therefore, a decrease in mass yields the same effect as an increase in the strength of the spring and vice versa. Stronger chemical bonds tend to cause increases in observed frequency. Lighter atomic masses tend to cause increases in observed frequencies.

With the exception of enantiomers, no two compounds have the same infrared spectrum, that is, with every band matching in peak position (wavenumber), intensity, and bandwidth. As a result, infrared spectra can be used to identify molecular components of samples. In addition to identification or comparisons of compounds, a second qualitative use of infrared spectra is to obtain structural information. Functional groups can be identified because their absorption bands lie in relatively narrow, characteristic regions of the infrared region.

Functional group: 4000 – 1300 cm-1
Fingerprint region: 1300 – 910 cm-1
Aromatic region: 910 – 650 cm-1

The fingerprint region contains peaks that arise from complicated normal modes involving bending motions and are not usually assignable. But, because of their origin, they are the most sensitive to differences in compound structure; that is, they represent a "fingerprint" for each specific compound. Peaks in the aromatic region do not automatically prove the presence of aromatic rings, since some carbon-halogen bands appear in this region. However, one or more strong peaks in the aromatic region indicates the possible presence of an aromatic compound. If there are no bands in this region, it is highly likely that there is no aromatic center. The bands arise from the motion of C-H bonds bending out of the plane of an aromatic ring.
 
Very nice.Thanks Doc. :D
 
Dr. D,

You couldn't have just said "FTIR's are a pain in the ass to read, but are can be used to detect/compare functional groups" and be done with it?
 
Dr. D,

You couldn't have just said "FTIR's are a pain in the ass to read, but are can be used to detect/compare functional groups" and be done with it?

Haha, yeah, basically. :p



Reading Lab Results: PART 2

Mass Spectrometry (MS): Theory

Mass spectrometry (MS) is a technique used to measure the mass of ions and their abundances in the gas phase. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS) is a method that combines the features of gas chromatography and mass spectrometry to identify different substances within a test sample. The four steps of the mass measurement are:

1. Generation of the gas-phase molecules (and molecular fragments and atoms),
2. Their ionization,
3. The separation based on mass,
4. The detection of the ion beam.

The GC/MS is composed of two major building blocks: the gas chromatograph and the mass spectrometer. The gas chromatograph uses the difference in the chemical properties between different molecules in a mixture to separate the molecules. The molecules take different amounts of time (called the retention time) to come out of the gas chromatograph, and this allows the mass spectrometer downstream to evaluate the molecules separately in order to identify them. The mass spectrometer breaks each molecule into ionized fragments and detects these fragments using their mass to charge ratio. Each molecule has a specific fragment spectrum, which allows for its detection. The gas chromatograph and the mass spectrometers, used together, allow a much finer degree of substance identification than either unit used separately. It is possible to make an accurate identification of a particular molecule by gas chromatography or mass spectrometry alone but mass spectrometry normally requires a very pure sample and sometimes two different molecules can have a similar pattern of ionized fragments while gas chromatography can produce the same retention time for different molecular types. Combining the two processes makes it extremely unlikely that two different molecules will behave in the same way in both a gas chromatograph and a mass spectrometer. So when an identifying mass spectrum appears at a characteristic retention time in a GC/MS analysis, it is usually taken as proof of the presence of that particular molecule in the sample.

A gas chromatograph is connected to a carrier gas stored in a tank under high pressure. The carrier tank is connected to the system through an appropriate gas regulator. This provides gas at a fixed pressure to the instrument’s gas-flow controller, which is another regulator. Gas chromatography requires precise control of the flow of the carrier gas. The sample is introduced into an injection port (usually heated) and passes into the chromatographic column. At the end of the column is the detector, with its output fed to the data analysis system. The three basic sections of the mass spectrometer are the mass source, the mass analyzer and the transducer/detector. The gaseous molecules are ionized in the space between two charged plates. The ions are accelerated across a potential of a few kilovolts and focused using electric fields and/or slits. The accelerated ions pass from the source of insertion into one of a number of types of mass analyzers. In most mass analyzers, the ions of different masses are separated in space, so the different species of ions impinge on the transducer at different times. The transducer, usually an electron multiplier, which amplifies the currents, amplifies this small ion current. This current is further amplified by its associated electronics to produce the output signal. The output of the ion current versus time is plotted as ion current versus mass. In a mass spectrum, the masses are measured by the peak positions on the horizontal axis. Mass spectrometry works only on charged species: gas-phase ions. What is always determined is the ratio of the mass to the electric charge on the fragment.

The analysis of a compound utilizing GC/MS measures the peaks in relation to one another, with the tallest peak receiving 100% of the value, and the others receiving proportionate values, with all values above 3% being accounted for. The parent peak normally indicates the total mass of the unknown compound. This value can then be used to fit into a chemical formula containing the various elements assumed to be present in the compound. The isotope pattern in the spectrum, which is unique for elements having many isotopes, can also be used to identify the various elements present. Once a chemical formula has been matched to the spectrum, the molecular structure and bonding can be identified, and needs to be consistent with a substance with the characteristics recorded by the GC/MS.

.
.
.

Read these a few times over and you'll be ready when I post results. It will be VERY clear what's going on after that and you'll be able to appreciate the full depth of this situation and understand the lies that have been spoken and by whom. :thumbsup:
 
speak of the devil, I'm doing some mass spec's for Lab Homework right now.

NMR's are the easiest to interpret, in my opinion.
 
13c is really easy proton on the other hand when its a huge molecule can get crazy. Besides you need to read the I.R. before you can totally break down the proton NMR. Once you have the numbers in your head and you know what the peaks look like IR is really very simple
 
I can figure carbonyl's and alcohols pretty easy on IR's. Everything else.......not so good for me.

Of course, I've had a fun time with all this, since they changed the Ochem cirriculum while I was on a co-op. (so the stuff I was going to learn in 2nd ochem was now expected to have been learned in ochem1).
 
I can figure carbonyl's and alcohols pretty easy on IR's. Everything else.......not so good for me.

Of course, I've had a fun time with all this, since they changed the Ochem cirriculum while I was on a co-op. (so the stuff I was going to learn in 2nd ochem was now expected to have been learned in ochem1).

I presume you mean carboxylic acids and alcohols. Big huuuuuge broad peak. The carbonyl peak isn't quite as obvious. At the least, I'd expect everyone who took ochem to remember carboxylic acids and alcohols when they see an IR :D
 
Here is the best list I have ever seen for interpreting I.R.'s

cdbc 1620-1780 cm-1
cdbo 1680*1750 cm-1
Aldehydes
Ketones
Carboxylic acids
Carboxylic esters
Amides

Monosubstituted aromatic overtone bonds 1700-2000cm-1
ctbc 2100-2200cm-1
ctbN 2240-2280cm-1
co2 from air 2300-2400cm-1
sp3 c-h 2850-2950
sp2 c-h 3000-3100cm-1
sp c-h 3310-3320cm-1
O-H acid 2500-3600cm-1 "this is not included but on a side note this will be your widest peak, even wider than an alcohol peak."

O-H alcohol 3200-3600cm-1
N-H 3350-3500cm-1

Get to know this list and you will have no trouble whatsoever with I.R.
Hope it helps.
 
With the exception of enantiomers, no two compounds have the same infrared spectrum, that is, with every band matching in peak position (wavenumber), intensity, and bandwidth.
It may help to clear up to those who don't know what enantiomers are and why they can have the same IR spectra.

Enantiomers are "non-super imposable mirror images" of each other. Like your left and right hands. They're different molecules, and this definitely shows up in biochemistry and enantiomers of safe molecules can be dangerous. But, they react the same as each other.
 
Having said all of this, this really isn't going to help many people interpret the IR data on their own, unless they spend a reasonable amount of time trying to learn.

But, it will help a lot when someone is describing to them what they're seeing in the IR.
 
Enantiomers do however sometimes have the same effect in the body as the active chemical. Or can be entirely inactive in the body I believe ibuprofin and acetomenophen and aspirin all are racemic mixtures. Which means both enantiomers are created equally during synthesis and they do not purify the compound because it supposedly poses no health risk to the consumer.
 
True but its the fingerprint region that is really going to matter. That would be the hardest part to describe and that has to be compared to a standard I believe.

I think it would be very similar to the parent compounds fingerprint. This is just an educated guess though. So correct me if I'm wrong.
 
No. Everything is unknown at some point, how do you think a standard ever comes to be? There are different test methods used to confirm structure. It's time you guys stated learning so you can see for yourselves and will not be forced to just "trust" people. Facts are facts. I'm about to teach you how. Here is an objective and basic definition and starter for doing this. You will be seeing results at some point soon and this issue will finally be clear once and for all. ;)



Reading Lab Results, Part I: FTIR

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometry (FTIR or just IR): Theory

Infrared spectrometry (IR) is used to probe the characteristic vibrations of molecules, crystals, and glasses. As for all spectrometry, the energy at which the bands appear depends on the properties of the molecules, while the magnitudes of the individual bands can be used to determine concentrations. In infrared spectrometry, it is customary to present the spectra as a plot of %T (transmittance) versus wavenumber, cm-1. The wavelength at which energy is absorbed depends on the identity of the atoms in a molecule, the molecular structure and the bonding between the atoms. The spectrum of energy absorption due to excitation of molecular vibrations is quite sensitive to differences in structure.

Each chemical bond acts like a spring connecting two atoms with masses M1 and M2. The spring is a Hooke's law spring. This name indicates that the spring exerts a force that is directly proportional to the distance through which it is compressed or expanded from its resting position. Algebraically stated,

Force = -k [delta]X

Where k is a constant and [delta]X the distance moved from the resting position, Xo. The negative sign means that the force tends to pull the spring back to where it started. When the spring is compressed, it exerts a force to expand. When the spring is stretched, it exerts a force to pull back. A set of masses that are connected by the spring naturally tend to settle into a specific motion when agitated. The masses vibrate with a frequency that depends on the masses and strengths of the spring. If k becomes larger, which means that the spring becomes stiffer, then the natural frequency rises; the vibration is faster. Therefore, a decrease in mass yields the same effect as an increase in the strength of the spring and vice versa. Stronger chemical bonds tend to cause increases in observed frequency. Lighter atomic masses tend to cause increases in observed frequencies.

With the exception of enantiomers, no two compounds have the same infrared spectrum, that is, with every band matching in peak position (wavenumber), intensity, and bandwidth. As a result, infrared spectra can be used to identify molecular components of samples. In addition to identification or comparisons of compounds, a second qualitative use of infrared spectra is to obtain structural information. Functional groups can be identified because their absorption bands lie in relatively narrow, characteristic regions of the infrared region.

Functional group: 4000 – 1300 cm-1
Fingerprint region: 1300 – 910 cm-1
Aromatic region: 910 – 650 cm-1

The fingerprint region contains peaks that arise from complicated normal modes involving bending motions and are not usually assignable. But, because of their origin, they are the most sensitive to differences in compound structure; that is, they represent a "fingerprint" for each specific compound. Peaks in the aromatic region do not automatically prove the presence of aromatic rings, since some carbon-halogen bands appear in this region. However, one or more strong peaks in the aromatic region indicates the possible presence of an aromatic compound. If there are no bands in this region, it is highly likely that there is no aromatic center. The bands arise from the motion of C-H bonds bending out of the plane of an aromatic ring.

this is why i love AM, learning!

btw thanks Doc!
 
True but its the fingerprint region that is really going to matter. That would be the hardest part to describe and that has to be compared to a standard I believe.

I think it would be very similar to the parent compounds fingerprint. This is just an educated guess though. So correct me if I'm wrong.

It doesn't have to be compared to a standard.

People have to determine the structures of compounds all the time before there is a standard. A standard just helps some poor idiot like me when I'm trying to confirm my spectroscopy interpretation skills are decent.

Looking at that molecule, IR isn't going to do a whole bunch anyway. NMR will definitely be needed to start piecing together the picture and making sure we have the right molecule.

There are two functional groups on the molecule (at least the one on the bottle) that we'll be able to clearly see w/ IR, and you'll be able to interpret their existence from H NMR anyway.
 
Yeah i know there doesnt truly need to be a standard; however i looked at the website for the company and they didn't show that they had an nmr or used one for the testing of compounds. You can go to their site and look at what they all do for testing supplements.
 
and this goes back to my old post asking for a more viable method of testing other than a GC/MS, it looks as though an FTIR is exactly that..... SO BRING IT OUT BOYS!

this would be the easiest non translatable by the tester type of test that would leave most speculation outta the picture correct?

now is this method just more expensive or takes longer to do? or why else is it that everyone would rather run a GC/MS?
 
I presume you mean carboxylic acids and alcohols. Big huuuuuge broad peak. The carbonyl peak isn't quite as obvious. At the least, I'd expect everyone who took ochem to remember carboxylic acids and alcohols when they see an IR :D

Yeah, the -OH is possibly the most blatant, but every single lab I do seems to involve either a ketone or aldehyde, so I've gotten pretty accustomed to the medium C=O peak.
 
and this goes back to my old post asking for a more viable method of testing other than a GC/MS, it looks as though an FTIR is exactly that..... SO BRING IT OUT BOYS!

this would be the easiest non translatable by the tester type of test that would leave most speculation outta the picture correct?

now is this method just more expensive or takes longer to do? or why else is it that everyone would rather run a GC/MS?
No, I really don't think the IR would be that helpful for this. My experience is pretty limited in this regard, but considering the molecules is nothing but sp3 hybridized carbons and hydrogens attached to them with one alcohol group and one epithio group, it would seem NMR would really be needed.

However, I'd say that if we know batch #1 is good, then if the rest are check with an CG/MS its probably totally cool.
 
GC/MS tells you the weight and what weights the molecule breaks down into when hit with an "electron gun." Its a great test because it can tell you alot if you already know what it is that your looking for.

IR takes only minutes and it tells you more about whats in the structure but it doesnt really give you the tools to build it.

13C NMR starts to give you the tools to build your compound by telling you how much symmetry there is.

H Proton NMR tells you pretty much everything you need to build the compound. Like how rings are substituted and some other more detailed things.

All of these tests would be needed to build the standard however it would take someone very very good to determine the HNMR on this because the machine wont tell you the intagrels on the hydrogens.

There are PHD's who specialize in these techniques and they should be the ones to say exactly what compound is in the pills.

We do have an Idea of what we are looking for so the gc would tell us if we have the correct molecular weight. The Ir will give us the functional groups. If need be it would very easy to do some chemistry on the episulfide bond and break it open, which would also give us more info about what functional groups are present. If there is an I.R. standard which Dr. D stated there is then the I.R. is fine but it would be open to who decided that standard and what it was based off of.
 
I think the one most helpful test, from what I've done so far, is H NMR. You can really figure out what a molecule is going to look like when you understand H NMR.
 
True but its the fingerprint region that is really going to matter. That would be the hardest part to describe and that has to be compared to a standard I believe.

I think it would be very similar to the parent compounds fingerprint. This is just an educated guess though. So correct me if I'm wrong.

this is exactly why i said earlier it doesnt matter how complex it realy is if someone will whip out the standard and BOTH the compounds in question here and lay them side by side. cause everyone can tell if theyre the same by comparison (supposed to all be the same damn thing right?)... dont have to know what every individual measurment means.... although i find it very interesting and cant wait to get back to school as science is by far my favorite...
 
. If there is an I.R. standard which Dr. D stated there is then the I.R. is fine but it would be open to who decided that standard and what it was based off of.
then it goes to ask why wouldnt both companies know what the standard was if they are asking for that comound? or at least be givin a standard and a test of the raws by the chem house they are working with???? id think it would jsut be good biz to make sure they arent getting ripped by the chem house let alone the QC issues....
 
... There are two functional groups on the molecule (at least the one on the bottle) that we'll be able to clearly see w/ IR ...

Exactly. And that is how it shall be applied. The IR data will serve to confirm a solid MS interpretations here.
 
So for confirmation you'll just be looking for correct M+ and IR peaks for the epithio and OH group then. (M+ will probably be MW -17 or 18, b/c of H2O loss from the 17b-ol right?)

Good enough for me. IR is a cinch to run, too...takes all of what 30 seconds once the solution is prepared?
 
Hey Doc, I'm trying to determine MW here...but it appears the artist doesn't understand its kind of important to point out whether those lines are methyl groups or not :D

Invalid Link Removed Which of those lines are methyl groups? Or, do you know the MW off hand?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top