We have a 5036 mile sample from 3 different labs:
The water is from the sample bottle (my bad)
The water is from the sample bottle (my bad)
You find that comforting?Thank for the comparison. Very informative and comforting.
I think the comforting aspect he is referring to, is the fact that these 3 reports were more in line than the last 3 report attempt.You find that comforting?
Yes hopefully the laboratories are all following the correct calibration and maintenance procedures as well as proper standardized tests. This should yield statistically correct results within the margin of reproducibility stated in the procedure.I think the comforting aspect he is referring to, is the fact that these 3 reports were more in line than the last 3 report attempt.
It is perhaps comforting to know that a "cheap $30 spectrographic analysis" can be done at 3 different labs with such accuracy.
Maybe, just maybe, they are not as useless as some here has espoused.
I personally am comforted. Aren't you?
The fact that it is reproducible and consistent is important. If it was not so, there would be more validity to the argument about how useless it is. So, it does affect the significance of what is presented in the cheap, $30 report. I think you know that already.Yes hopefully the laboratories are all following the correct calibration and maintenance procedures as well as proper standardized tests. This should yield statistically correct results within the margin of reproducibility stated in the procedure.
But how does this make the spectrographic analysis more useful for those things we talked about elsewhere? It's still a cheap $30 elemental analysis, but it's a reproducible one. That does not affect the significance.
That would be an argument that the lab is incompetent, sloppy or careless.If there were wide inconsistencies in the tests from the different labs, I have no doubt you would use that information to reinforce your argument.
Ha ha.That would be an argument that the lab is incompetent, sloppy or careless.