What I want from this titration planner refuses thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it.
17 likes 6mo
Data & Tools · Calculators · continued
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 · go to the accepted answer.
h.iyer, post #27: Confirming post #24 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person. I disagree with the framing of titration planner refuses above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked. The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a… Go to post
Mass error checking: enter your observed mass and theoretical mass and check whether the difference in ppm is within reasonable bounds for your instrument. Useful sanity check on LC-MS results.
Post #33 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
The thing about titration planner refuses that took me longest to accept is that a plausible mechanism is not evidence of an effect. It is a reason to look, not a result.
0 likes 6mo
On post #33 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Precision and significant figures: the calculators do not round to match your input precision. If you input values to one decimal place, the output might have more. Use significant figures appropriate to your input precision.
Genuinely open to being wrong about this one.
24 likes 6mo
h.iyer, post #27: Confirming post #24 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person. I disagree with the framing of titration planner refuses above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked. The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a… Go to post
The version of titration planner refuses that I was taught turned out to be a teaching simplification. Useful, and not true in the way I had assumed it was.
A tool that refuses to give an answer when the result falls below one graduation is doing something useful. Most just print the number.
3 likes 6mo
Post #37 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
I have been on both sides of the titration planner refuses argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.
0 likes 5mo
Adding the measurement that post #37 says would settle it.
The most common input error is entering the vial mass in the concentration field. It produces a plausible number, which is why it survives.
I am confident about the direction and much less about the magnitude.
17 likes 5mo
Narrowing post #42, because the general version has more than one answer.
The honest answer on titration planner refuses is that it depends, and the useful part is the list of what it depends on. Four items, in rough order of how much they matter.
Most people get the first two right and then argue about the fourth.
3 likes 5mo
n.ekstrom, post #32: Mass error checking: enter your observed mass and theoretical mass and check whether the difference in ppm is within reasonable bounds for your instrument. Useful sanity check on LC-MS results. Go to post
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.
Post #44 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
A note on how titration planner refuses gets discussed rather than on titration planner refuses itself: the confident posts get the replies and the careful ones get ignored, and the careful ones have been right more often.
32 likes 5mo
Worth stating the null on titration planner refuses before we explain it: the observation may be nothing. That possibility deserves a sentence and usually does not get one.
1 like 5mo
n.abernathy, post #40: Adding the measurement that post #37 says would settle it. The most common input error is entering the vial mass in the concentration field. It produces a plausible number, which is why it survives. I am confident about the direction and much less about the magnitude. Go to post
Saving this. It is the version I will quote when the question comes round again.
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.
I am aware this is the third time this month I have made this point.
0 likes 4mo
Adding the boring version of titration planner refuses, because the interesting version keeps getting posted and the boring one is usually right.
Check the ordinary explanations, in order, and stop when one of them accounts for what you are seeing. Most of the time the second one does.
6 likes 4mo
n.abernathy, post #40: Adding the measurement that post #37 says would settle it. The most common input error is entering the vial mass in the concentration field. It produces a plausible number, which is why it survives. I am confident about the direction and much less about the magnitude. Go to post
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.
JFitzgibbon, post #29: Narrowing post #28, because the general version has more than one answer. 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. Scoping that to what I have actually seen rather than what I have read. Go to post
Two things can be true about titration planner refuses at once: the mechanism is plausible and the evidence for the size of the effect is thin. Most of the argument here is people defending the first against attacks on the second.
Post #52 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
The question underneath titration planner refuses is usually "how would I tell?" rather than "what is true?", and that one has a method attached to it.
Write down what you would expect to see under each hypothesis before you collect anything. If they predict the same observation, collecting it will not help.
22 likes 4mo
Building on post #55 rather than restating it.
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.
I would be interested in a counterexample if anyone has one.
10 likes 4mo
outline_first, post #38: Post #37 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit. I have been on both sides of the titration planner refuses argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is. Go to post
Precision and significant figures: the calculators do not round to match your input precision. If you input values to one decimal place, the output might have more. Use significant figures appropriate to your input precision.
I am not the right person to answer the follow-up to this.
Where I have landed on titration planner refuses, having got it wrong once in public: the direction is clear, the magnitude is not, and anyone quoting a precise magnitude has borrowed it from somewhere that did not measure it.
0 likes 4mo
Titration planner refuses is one of those subjects where the general answer and the answer for a specific case diverge, and the thread will go in circles until someone says which one is being asked for.
29 likes 4mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
The most common input error is entering the vial mass in the concentration field. It produces a plausible number, which is why it survives.
Take the reasoning and check the arithmetic; I do not always get it right.