Follow-up: Why the titration planner refuses to produce a schedule below a floor posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
The most common input error is entering the vial mass in the concentration field. It produces a plausible number, which is why it survives.
Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand.
Building on post #30 rather than restating it.
I read the earlier replies on titration planner refuses twice before writing this, because I had assumed the opposite and wanted to be sure I was disagreeing with what was said rather than what I expected.
Counterpoint on titration planner refuses, offered without confidence: the same observation is consistent with a much duller explanation, and nobody has ruled the dull one out.
On titration planner refuses I would separate what is worth knowing from what is worth acting on. The first list is long and the second is short, and conflating them is how threads get heated.
Where I part company with post #36, and it is a narrow parting.
Unit-conversion tools are only as good as the assumption they make about the syringe. Ask what barrel and what graduation interval it assumed before trusting the units figure.
Post #38 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Where the titration planner refuses discussion usually stalls is that nobody wants to say "I do not know" and everyone is willing to say "it varies". Those are the same sentence with different clothes on.
I read post #36 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Rounding behaviour is where two tools disagree. One rounding to the nearest graduation and one to two decimal places will produce different advice from identical inputs.
Whatever the answer on titration planner refuses turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, invite the correction.
Tools that run entirely in the browser send nothing anywhere, which matters more to some people here than others and is worth stating either way.
Narrowing post #42, because the general version has more than one answer.
One caution on titration planner refuses: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated.
A saved calculation is worth more than a remembered one. Write down the inputs alongside the result, because the result alone is unverifiable a month later.
This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not.
Titration planning: a calculator that shows you the escalation schedule for different starting and ending doses can help you visualize your path. Actual path might be slower or adjusted for tolerability.
This is the sort of thing that ought to be settled and apparently is not.
Significant figures in the output should not exceed what the inputs support. A concentration calculated from a nominal vial mass is not known to four decimal places.
It cost nothing to check and would have cost something not to.
Titration planner refuses: I have looked for the primary source twice and failed twice. Either it does not exist or it is somewhere I do not know to look, and I would like to know which.
This follows post #49 rather than contradicting it.
Posting my titration planner refuses numbers with the method attached so they can be discounted properly. Uncontrolled, unblinded, and collected by someone who wanted a particular answer.
The most common input error is entering the vial mass in the concentration field. It produces a plausible number, which is why it survives.
A methods point on titration planner refuses rather than a substantive one: if the comparison is not like for like, the difference you are measuring is the difference in method.
Post #52 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Agreed on titration planner refuses, with one qualification that I think matters. The reasoning holds for the case as described. Change the starting assumption and it does not, and the starting assumption is the part nobody states.
I read post #50 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
A saved calculation is worth more than a remembered one. Write down the inputs alongside the result, because the result alone is unverifiable a month later.
The mechanism is plausible, which is not the same as established.
The reason titration planner refuses keeps being re-asked is that the answer is conditional and people quote it without the condition. It is not that the answer is unknown.
Post #54 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
A tool that refuses to give an answer when the result falls below one graduation is doing something useful. Most just print the number.
That is one dataset and I would not build a rule on it.
Narrowing post #56, because the general version has more than one answer.
Tools that run entirely in the browser send nothing anywhere, which matters more to some people here than others and is worth stating either way.
I keep a log of this specifically because memory is unreliable about it.
Understood. Thank you for being specific about the limits of it.
Adding the measurement that post #56 says would settle it.
Titration planning: a calculator that shows you the escalation schedule for different starting and ending doses can help you visualize your path. Actual path might be slower or adjusted for tolerability.
I would be glad to be shown a cleaner way of putting this.
Dose equivalence calculator: compounds have different potencies. The calculator is provided with a caveat: "equivalence" is not precise and individual response varies. It is a rough starting point, not a dose prescription.