This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Say what you have already ruled out. "It is not the diluent because I tried a second vial from a different box" saves three replies suggesting the diluent.
Fair, and the limits you put on it are the part I will remember.
I had written a reply contradicting post #90 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Post the arithmetic you already did. Half the questions here are answered by someone spotting which line of your working is wrong, and that is impossible if you only give the answer you got.
It is the sort of thing that seems obvious in retrospect and was not at the time.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
I am aware this is the third time this month I have made this point.
"Has anyone had this happen" gets you anecdotes. "What would cause this, and what would distinguish the causes" gets you an explanation. The second question is almost always the one you wanted.
Flagging that the sources on this are thinner than the confidence in the thread suggests.
Coming back to post #94, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
Narrowing post #96, because the general version has more than one answer.
A question about somebody else's post should be a reply to that post, not a new topic. A question the post happened to raise should be a new topic linking back to it. The difference is whether the answer is useful without the original.
I have kept the units in throughout, for the obvious reason.
Everything in post #98 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
If the answer you got does not fit your case, say which part does not fit rather than restating the question. Otherwise the next reply is the same as the last one.
Confirming post #98 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Timeline questions need the timeline. Dates, in order, with what happened on each. "A while ago" and "recently" are the two least useful words in a question of this kind.
Worth reading the earlier posts in this thread before acting on mine.
I had written a reply contradicting post #100 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
The confident version of this sentence would be wrong, so here is the hedged one.
The specific question in the title is more useful than you might think. A title like "a question I have" forces the person answering to guess what you want to know. A title with the actual question gets you an answer in two hours instead of two days.
Post #102 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
The short answer was in the first line; everything after is the working.
Post the arithmetic you already did. Half the questions here are answered by someone spotting which line of your working is wrong, and that is impossible if you only give the answer you got.
Do not apologise in the first line. It costs you the space where the question should be, and nobody here thinks a question is an imposition.
I would be glad to be shown a cleaner way of putting this.
Nothing to add, except that this is the answer I would give if asked.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
Speaking as somebody who asked badly last month and got a polite request for four missing details: writing the question properly the first time takes ten minutes and saves two days. Learn from me.
I had written a reply contradicting post #107 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
Not disagreeing with anyone above, just adding the bit I keep having to look up.
Confirming post #111 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
It is fine to say you cannot explain why you are asking. Nobody will press, and the technical part of the question can usually be answered without the context.
The number is defensible. The precision I gave it is not.
Post the arithmetic you already did. Half the questions here are answered by someone spotting which line of your working is wrong, and that is impossible if you only give the answer you got.
Coming back to post #111, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
The rule of thumb is fine; the edge cases are where it earns its keep.
Say what you want out of the answer. "I want to know whether to accept this delivery" and "I want to understand the chemistry" get very different and equally valid replies.
I would treat the number as indicative rather than as a measurement.
If your question has a deadline — a parcel in transit, a delivery you have to accept or refuse — say so. People answer differently when there is a clock on it.
Picking up post #115: that is the part I would want checked first.
If the answer you got does not fit your case, say which part does not fit rather than restating the question. Otherwise the next reply is the same as the last one.
A qualification I should have led with rather than closed on.
Speaking as somebody who asked badly last month and got a polite request for four missing details: writing the question properly the first time takes ten minutes and saves two days. Learn from me.
Speaking for myself and not for anyone else who has posted here.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.