Posting this under the heading it deserves: Power cut for eleven hours: how I assessed it afterwards Everything below is what sits behind that.
The question about power cut for eleven hours that I actually want answered is the second one below. The first is context and I have kept it short.
Both are stated with units, and I have said what I already checked so that nobody repeats it.
Marking my place. If it changes for me I will come back and say so.
Coming back to post #2, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Marking my uncertainty on power cut for eleven hours explicitly. I am confident about the direction, much less confident about the size, and not confident at all that it generalises past the case in the first post.
Confirming post #4 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
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.
Taking post #8 at face value and following it one step further.
Adding a reference point for power cut for eleven hours. Mine is a single case, collected without controls, and I am posting the method alongside it so it can be discounted appropriately.
Clarity is a weak test. A solution can lose a significant fraction of its active content to degradation or adsorption while remaining perfectly clear.
Picking up post #9: that is the part I would want checked first.
I read the earlier replies on power cut for eleven hours 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.
Clarity is a weak test. A solution can lose a significant fraction of its active content to degradation or adsorption while remaining perfectly clear.
Post #13 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Reporting rather than recommending, on power cut for eleven hours. What happened is above. Whether it should have is a different question and not one I am qualified to answer.
Adding the measurement that post #13 says would settle it.
Temperature excursions in transit are common and are not all equal. A few hours warm is a different event from three days warm, and neither is visible in the vial on arrival.
It is worth checking rather than assuming, which costs nothing.
Checked the power cut for eleven hours claim against the primary source this morning. It survives, with a narrower scope than the version quoted here. Posting the narrower scope.
Post #18 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Second-hand on power cut for eleven hours, so weight it accordingly — someone whose method I trust told me this and I have not verified it myself.
Clarity is a weak test. A solution can lose a significant fraction of its active content to degradation or adsorption while remaining perfectly clear.
What would change my mind on power cut for eleven hours is a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in the first. Until then I hold it loosely and I would rather say so than pretend to more.
Where I part company with post #20, and it is a narrow parting.
Visible particulate is a strong signal in the other direction: it is a reason to stop and ask rather than to filter and proceed.
Speaking for myself and not for anyone else who has posted here.
Grateful for the specificity. Vague answers to this question are what sent me looking.
Building on post #25 rather than restating it.
On power cut for eleven hours, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.
If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.
Clarity is a weak test. A solution can lose a significant fraction of its active content to degradation or adsorption while remaining perfectly clear.
Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me.
Post #27 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
I think the power cut for eleven hours question is answerable and has not been answered, which is a more optimistic position than most of this thread.
Where the power cut for eleven hours reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.