Revisiting: Mean kinetic temperature explained without the mathematics posts 61–76

Distinguishing three things in the Mean kinetic temperature discussion that keep getting used interchangeably: the observation, the proposed mechanism, and the recommendation that gets attached to both.

Clarity is a weak test. A solution can lose a significant fraction of its active content to degradation or adsorption while remaining perfectly clear.

Light protection is easy and cheap. The original carton exists for a reason and a vial stored in it is protected without anybody having to think about it again.

That has held every time I have looked, which is not the same as always.

Confirming post #61 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

The strongest argument against my own position on Mean kinetic temperature, stated as well as I can state it, since nobody else has yet.

Reading rather than contributing, but this is the most useful thread I have found on it.

Clarity is a weak test. A solution can lose a significant fraction of its active content to degradation or adsorption while remaining perfectly clear.

I think the Mean kinetic temperature question is answerable and has not been answered, which is a more optimistic position than most of this thread.

Post #67 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

Temperature excursions: if a vial sat at room temperature for a time, the question is whether the excursion was long enough to cause damage. Hours at room temperature is usually low risk. Days to weeks raises the risk. If you are unsure, contacting the supplier is more informative than guessing.

The confident version of this sentence would be wrong, so here is the hedged one.

Taking post #69 at face value and following it one step further.

Adsorption to container surfaces removes peptide from solution without changing how the solution looks. In dilute preparations that loss can be a meaningful proportion, and it is invisible.

Worth reading the earlier posts in this thread before acting on mine.

The arithmetic in post #68 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

Mean kinetic temperature sits at the boundary between what this community can usefully discuss and what it cannot, and I think it falls on the discussable side, narrowly.

Helpful, and short, which on this subject is harder than long.

Mean kinetic temperature is worth one more sentence than it usually gets, and the sentence is the one about how the number was arrived at.

Visible particulate is a strong signal in the other direction: it is a reason to stop and ask rather than to filter and proceed.

A weak preference rather than a position.