almost a doctor

according to wikipedia english:

The unmanifested is the Absolute, the pure and formless ground of being from which creation and manifestation arise. As such, the unmanifested is free from change, the unmoved mover. It also, necessarily, cannot be explained or comprehended in terms of any manifest reality.

Actually, if you are talking about a ratio, then a two fold dilution is 1:1
That is, one part bacteria to 1 part diluent.
1:2 means 1 part bacteria to 2 parts diluent (or a 3 fold dilution).

Often scientists use this ratio notation incorrectly, so quite often, people will still know what you mean, but I can't help myself from pointing out it is wrong..... I can be a know-it-all sometimes   

Dear Science noob,

This is an extremely common problem that I have seen over the years. You comment:-

"methods provided in published papers"    .............. this is a big problem in that this part of a paper should probably be the largest section but is commonly just cut to a bear minimum. There are lots of "tricks" that are left out of this section that are essential for thew experiment to be reproduced.

"Same concentration, same cell lines, same conditions"................every cell paper I read states " the cells were grown in a humidified CO2 Incubator at 5% CO2. How many researchers routinely check for humidifiaction AND FYRITE THEIR INCUBATORS TO CHECK PRECISELY THE INTERNAL CO2 CONCENTRATION IN THEIR INCUBATORS.

ARE THE INCUBATORS DIRECT HEAT OR FAN ASSISTED?

WHERE DOE YOUR FOETAL CALF SERUM COME FROM?.......there are massive differences between the qualitof serum sourced for the many countries of the world that produce it.

HOW MANY RESEARCHERS HAVE AUTHENTICATED THEIR CELLS BEFORE USING THEM?

HOW MANY RESEARCHERS ARE WORKING WITH MYCOPLASMA INFECTED CELLS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT TEST THEM?


Does this start to answer your question about reproducibility?

Kindest regards

Uncle Rhombus

don't coomassie stain the membrane after blocking (and further processing). you'll end up with a totally blue membrane. you can only stain the membrane before processing.

what is the size of your protein of interest? what is the pore size of your membrane?

have you tried transfer with a membrane backing up the membrane to determine if you are getting blow through?

Did you try searching on google??

http://www.google.co...iw=1366&bih=653

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rt+pcr+vs+pcr

Depends whether you have your template disolved in water or in yogurt.

a good opportunity to use this good old website:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q...r dye chemistry

Biog, on 30 October 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

I disagree strongly with a lot of this.

Firstly to compare equal access to healthcare (which is an ideal and not yet achieved anywhere in my opinion) to funding of science is a poor analogy. Every human life has equal worth, every scientific idea does not.
I would be most upset if scientific funding was handed out on a everyone is equal basis instead of on the basis of merit.

If you were arguing that the measure of merit is flawed, I could agree with you- but you aren't. You are saying there should be no ranking, no rating. This is wrong.

Imagine how pissed off you'd be if the guy in the lab next to you with his flawed hypothesis, uncontrolled and lazy experiments was getting the same amount of funding as you?

Equal funding for all is not fair.

Biog, on 28 October 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

Look you could be the most brilliant mind to ever grace the face of this planet and yet you could do NOTHING for science or humanity without funding. That is just how it is. Regrettable? Perhaps.

Doing science costs money. There are lots and lots of scientists. There is a finite amount of money for science.

Somehow the public need to decide (through funding bodies/governments etc) how to allocate that money. This means ranking scientists and ranking their work. Is the ranking system used currently a flawed system? Yep.
Can you think of a better one?

I think we'd all be dead if there were anything to worry about.

hobglobin, on 15 October 2012 - 02:14 AM, said:

...based on the illustration, if you compare proportions, you actually know a lot more (at least general knowledge) when you finish elementary school...

Loading ready ladders typically have bromcresol purple and xylene cyanole blue rather than orange-G as the loading dye.  These blue dyes interfere with band visualization, and a far as I can tell are in every way inferior to orange-G.  I've tried to convince NEB to switch, to no apparent effect.  And why would I make an extra trip to the fridge if I can just keep the ladders on my bench?

In general no, it isnt valid to dilute your standards and multiply back up.
What you can do is dilute your samples so they fall into the range of your valid standards, then multiply back up to account for the dilution factor.
(as in, you do a 1:10 of your sample so it falls in the range of the standards, then multiply the value by ten to get the actual concentration.)

I may run two gels if I am doing both, after loading fresh buffer.  But I do not trust the buffer left over in a gel box others have used.  I even wash the gel box out after I'm done (probably the only time it ever gets washed).