EQ @ 1250mg ml

PeCz · 02-23-2009, 01:34 AM

Assuming the "Powder" is sterile, I know most powder weights are .75 to .85, so lets assume .80 is the weight this means 1g (1000mg) displaces .80ml so 1ml is 1.25g of product (1250mg) can I just shoot this? I mean really? Its the consistancy of honey or so, itll pass through a 20-21 like nothing... Cattle get pellet implants.... I mean im really curious... just what is the flaw here.

DaBurg3r · 02-23-2009, 01:38 AM

Negative, that refers to powder density in grams per mL.

so powder density of .80 means

.80g/mL

also, it just doesn't sound like a good idea to use it straight.

FisherAK · 02-23-2009, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeCz

Assuming the "Powder" is sterile, I know most powder weights are .75 to .85, so lets assume .80 is the weight this means 1g (1000mg) displaces .80ml so 1ml is 1.25g of product (1250mg) can I just shoot this? I mean really? Its the consistancy of honey or so, itll pass through a 20-21 like nothing... Cattle get pellet implants.... I mean im really curious... just what is the flaw here.

I'm trying to figure out what exactly you're saying here... you've turned 1g of powder into 1.25g/ml solution? That'd be pretty miraculous. Or wait, you're saying 1g of powder would displace 1ml of liquid so that you ended up with 1.25ml of solution @ 1g/1.25ml?

DaBurger already answered that whatever formula you were using is wrong, but I'm just trying to understand where you were trying to come from. (Seriously.)

You also said it's the consistency of honey, which leads me to believe you actually mixed something up. To get 1g/1.25ml, you'd have had to use 1g of powder + .25ml of oil (no solvent) which is impossible.

Definitely confused the hell out of me with whatever it is you were saying.

aahepp · 02-23-2009, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FisherAK

You also said it's the consistency of honey, which leads me to believe you actually mixed something up. To get 1g/1.25ml, you'd have had to use 1g of powder + .25ml of oil (no solvent) which is impossible.

Boldenone Undeclynate has an extremely low melting which is about room temp (low 70s I believe), so when it is getting sent to you it would already be a liquid and usually sent in a vial.

To the OP could you shoot it....yes. Would you want to....no. i know you said assume it was sterile, but at the viscosity level it is at in a natural state you would never be able to filter this product

brooklynplumber · 02-23-2009, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aahepp

Boldenone Undeclynate has an extremely low melting which is about room temp (low 70s I believe), so when it is getting sent to you it would already be a liquid and usually sent in a vial.

To the OP could you shoot it....yes. Would you want to....no. i know you said assume it was sterile, but at the viscosity level it is at in a natural state you would never be able to filter this product

The last guy that used this product at that viscosity level is paying dearly for it till this day ! get ready to spend tons of money on new clothes because at any given moment you could go into a rage and rip right out of what ever you are wearing ! this dudes name is DAVID BANNER . WOW the things people are willing to experiment with ! KEEP IT SIMPLE

Moreno13 · 02-23-2009, 09:24 AM

The Hulk lol

PeCz · 02-23-2009, 12:36 PM

Ok so .80g per ml is 800mg/ml...

The only down side of shooting it would be??? Sterility??

Other then that prob hurts like a mofo having all that hormone in one ml *shrugs* It's just a thought...

thefitnesswoman · 02-27-2009, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeCz

Ok so .80g per ml is 800mg/ml...

The only down side of shooting it would be??? Sterility??

Other then that prob hurts like a mofo having all that hormone in one ml *shrugs* It's just a thought...

Did you ever try or find out if it works?

**ratmonkey** · 03-02-2009, 03:20 PM

not sterile in the least. you wouldn't be able to pass the pure hormone through a filter and most other possible methods available to the homebrewer are useless for sterilization and may damage the hormone molecule.

Con3151 · 03-04-2009, 04:45 AM

just simply stupid. not sterile and definetly to fukn thick

one8nine · 03-31-2009, 12:36 AM

eq actually dispoaces closer to 0.95ml per gram (from experience) and once you add a little ba to make it sterile and filter it yes you could have about 1000mg/mL eq, but its a bad idea and could hurt like hell. but yes you could do it "safely" but its a terrible idea

one8nine · 03-31-2009, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FisherAK

I'm trying to figure out what exactly you're saying here... you've turned 1g of powder into 1.25g/ml solution? That'd be pretty miraculous. Or wait, you're saying 1g of powder would displace 1ml of liquid so that you ended up with 1.25ml of solution @ 1g/1.25ml?

DaBurger already answered that whatever formula you were using is wrong, but I'm just trying to understand where you were trying to come from. (Seriously.)

You also said it's the consistency of honey, which leads me to believe you actually mixed something up. To get 1g/1.25ml, you'd have had to use 1g of powder + .25ml of oil (no solvent) which is impossible.

Definitely confused the hell out of me with whatever it is you were saying.

eq is liquid at room temp i think thats where youre confused.
most people dont weight eq they say about 1.15mL = 1g instead we measure volume since its liquid.

one8nine · 03-31-2009, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeCz

Ok so .80g per ml is 800mg/ml...

The only down side of shooting it would be??? Sterility??

Other then that prob hurts like a mofo having all that hormone in one ml *shrugs* It's just a thought...

yes .8g = 800mg but he is saying 1g displaces .8mL so that doesnt mean the same thing.
if 1g displaces .8ml and its in liquid form thats actually 1250mg/mL

PeCz · 03-31-2009, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one8nine

yes .8g = 800mg but he is saying 1g displaces .8mL so that doesnt mean the same thing.
if 1g displaces .8ml and its in liquid form thats actually 1250mg/mL

I think my original math was right.

DaBurg3r · 04-01-2009, 11:00 PM

if equipoise density is 1.25g/mL then yes your original math was right, and you would have 1250mg/mL of equipoise if you used the pure liquid

one8nine said in his experience equipoise weighed closer to .95g/mL, so that would be 950mg/mL concentration for the pure liquid.

Drumkid20 · 04-01-2009, 11:07 PM

It's going to be fairly pure **** if your getting the raws. Assuming 98+% pure, weigh it, thats essentially exactly the weight your injecting. It has nothing to do with density, there is no solution there is just weight of the raw material. Even the worst powder sources are going to be pure enough to assume 100% purity essentially (I'm not saying all powder sources are clean or dont have trace heavy metals...!).

one8nine · 05-06-2009, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBurg3r

if equipoise density is 1.25g/mL then yes your original math was right, and you would have 1250mg/mL of equipoise if you used the pure liquid

one8nine said in his experience equipoise weighed closer to .95g/mL, so that would be 950mg/mL concentration for the pure liquid.

you guys are confusing displacement with concentration.
if 1 g displaces 0.95mL that means that if you have 1 g it takes up 0.95mL of space that does NOT mean its 950mg/mL

DaBurg3r · 05-06-2009, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one8nine

you guys are confusing displacement with concentration.
if 1 g displaces 0.95mL that means that if you have 1 g it takes up 0.95mL of space that does NOT mean its 950mg/mL

you mis-read my post. I said .95grams to the milliliter.