Enegry Control - questinable service, wasting time and money???

[Mr Good Cat]

Had a few attempts to collaborate with Energy Control in harm reduction realm and safety. More than questionable.

First of all you have wait to get your result at least 3-4 weeks from shipping date, and 2-3 weeks from delivery date. First sample took 3 weeks from delivery date, that is out of the range a bit. Product slightly grey and result is questionable - 87% for pretty pure mdma.
I not sure, the sample might be taken from a crystal part, so - questionable but ok.

Next time two samples were sent from the same bath. Both are in powder form after first re-crystallizattion in acetone. Result little faster, but not such fast as "blueberry pie")))

First sample, is slightly grey powder, that gave me result the same 87%. Again, hahaha.
Ready crystals from this batch.


Then, a part of powder from previous batch were taken for base extraction. Base extraction done Pure transparent base obtained, and pure white crystals obtained. Weight lost based on free base weight - 8%.
Water leftovers after base extraction of this batch.


Sample send. I was interested to compare results and estimate the necessity of base extraction for such kind of product.
The result - 87%. Not again but always, hahahahahahaha.

I don't know what is the reason of such equality, but it makes this drug testing service very very questionable, especially considering time gap

 

[BitcoinScam]

they use machine alpha 2 this is very good machine to test drugs my friend use it when chemicals come to him form china because he need know how pure is the chemicals.

 

[Mr Good Cat]

I just write the fact. And this fact makes it questionable. May be @Chem-Safe provide with some comments. Let's see

 

[Chem-Safe]

Hello, we have reviewed your order.

In the FAQ section, the following is explicitly stated.

Therefore, the 2 to 3 weeks falls within the 7-21 day wait.

Regarding what you mention about the crystals, it is possible that the analysis is not correct if you sent the sample in that format. For that reason we advise in advance that the sample must be homogenized.

As for what you mention about the questionability of the result.

1. We have a margin of error of between 5% and 10%, which is the margin of human error.
2. Note that the probability of obtaining the same result in a sample varies according to the distribution of the data. The closer your result is to the mean, the more likely it is that the result can be repeated. Given that you have a distribution of percentages with a mean of 82% and a standard deviation of 13.84%, you can analyze what range of values would be more likely when obtaining two samples with the same percentage.
   
   
   
3. Therefore, if two samples are analyzed, the range of numbers where it is most likely to obtain the same percentage is around the mean of 82%, extending approximately one standard deviation to either side (68.16% to 95.84%). This would be the most likely range to obtain the same result in two consecutive samples due to the concentration of data around the mean.

In other words, it is not a questionable result, it is probable.

 

[G.Patton]

Do you carry out several analysis of one sample for increasing the precision of the analysis and reduce the probability of error?

 

[Chem-Safe]

It depends, when we analyse "in situ" (festivals or safer consum rooms) we use FTIR. In our delegations with less financial support, less precise and rudimentary techniques such as TLC are used.

In the case of not being able to detect them, they are sent to the research laboratory of the Hospital del Mar, where we have the rest of the equipment (this is where the samples received from international service are sent directly).

• If the substances are MDMA, 4-MMC, 3-MMC, 2-MMC, 2C-B, MDA6-APB, 4-FA or alprazolam: GC/MS + UV-Vis.
• If LSD in a blotter or droplet: HPLC-UV + GC/MS
• For thermosensitive substances: LC/MS
• For substances requiring higher precision (fentanyl) GC/MS + LC/MS
• Enantiomers M, speed and meth: GC/MS + chiral column

I know that, in general, it is a range of up to 5% and that on some occasions a smaller error has been obtained, especially in substances that are not analyzed very often or are highly adulterated. Although I do not know the details, but, the EMCDDA considers our results as valid as their official report agents. However, I have passed the query on to the analysis team in case they can add any further details that I am overlooking.

 

[Mr Good Cat]

In other words, guys, it is simple blah blah blah human error blah blah blah, and I paid 360 EUR in total for nothing. Many thanks for great service.

Of course, it is questionable result, and main question is: "Why do I need to pay 120 EUR for a sample testing with margin error 5-10% if I can get the result with the same margin error using TLC for free?"

 

[Chem-Safe]

1. In every human endeavor, there is a margin for error. The margin of human error in the laboratory can vary considerably depending on numerous factors, including the type of tests being performed, complexity of procedures, calibration of equipment, training and skills of laboratory personnel, and working conditions.

2. About the price

• First, for the cost and maintenance:

• Second, because GC-MS is performed at the Hospital del Mar Research Park, and requires specialized personnel;

• Because TLC is an interpretative technique, it does not give a percentage, nor does it detect all substances, especially when they are NPS;

The pricing information makes it clear which techniques are used.

You have had the results in the estimated time we indicated, with the requested quantification and we have used a reference technique in the identification and quantification of compounds due to its high sensitivity and specificity;

I do not understand that you ask us for explanations, we put the effort to give you a clear answer and with data, even with standard deviations, for you to answer that our work is useless. It seems to me a lack of respect to the service and my colleagues;

 

[Mr Good Cat]

Come on, guys! I'm not angry, I'm laughing. I spent a few hours of my life breaking my brain and thinking about this riddle. I supposed many different reasons including MDM-imines building colloids with excess of isomers of amines. Holy fuck, this is fucking 5-10% margin error!!!

I'm laughing.

Hahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahaha

(not indeed)

 

[G.Patton]

You can't. GC-MS always has quite big error. Moreover, as @Chem-Safe said, there are a lot of other factors, which can affect on the result. I would recommend you to send both samples in one time to get result by the same apparatus operator, at the same day, at the same calibration, same tune, same internal standard and same solvent for sample preparation. It would be perfect for analysis accuracy.

 

[Mr Good Cat]

But in any case 5-10% error is not the thing, we all here are looking for.

 

[G.Patton]

I can tell you that there are GC methods, where the error about 30-40%. 5-10% Is not so bad. It's the reality of analytical chemistry.

 

[Mr Good Cat]

Well, there was long discussion somewhere here on BB, and some old members state if we all clandestine chemists care about rest 5% and our buyers, we must go for chromatography. And I agree with this point of view.

For TLC I can do 4-5 tests for the same sample and approximate the result accordingly, and I will do it accurately and carefully. And it looks, it will be more informative than Alpha-2 done by someone unknown with 5-10% error and 120 EUR cost.

 

[Mr Good Cat]

I saw a marketplace somewhere in darknet, it tests the stuff sold there randomly and posts reports, telling quantitative percentage as precise as 0.01%. I remember my university course of metrology and this also sounds weird for me: i don't believe in Satan Claus and fairy tales. But 1% shall be normal requirement for 120 eur test.

 

[Chem-Safe]

I understand this goes on because you know of another service that offers quantification of a wide variety of substances, using other methods that are more accurate than GC/MS for certain substances, with a price less than 120€ (80€ for MDMA & 2C-B and 50€ for heavy metals in cannabis samples) and with the margin of error you mention of 1% (including human error, of course).

We would love to know which one it is

 

[Chem-Safe]

By the way, I forgot to answer this question. But I think you answer it yourself here.

Remember that you are not only paying for numbers in the result, also for the time invested to get them.

 

[Mr Good Cat]

As I said. TLC with calibrated ruler will be more informative than your 120 EUR with error margin 10%. There is nothing to talk.
And, by the way, you were asked, how many tests do you perform per one sample to reduce this "human error". But it looks you avoid such unpleasant questions.

 

[Chem-Safe]

 

[Nicoino]

LoL man, isn't it because they test freebase quantities of the product and not the salt?
MDMA HCl is 84% freebase by mass

 

[Mr Good Cat]

I considered it. If it base, it shall be 84%, not 87%. Bullshit
LOL