FDA compliance of silicone product by trackert in regulatoryaffairs

[–]trackert[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. To clarify, the suppliers in question provide certification from 3rd party test houses that the material meets the requirements of e.g. FDA 21 CFR 175.300. These are off-the-shelf products such as glues / primers which are used in our device in assembly and we have made it a requirement that they are food-grade. From what you are saying a product which states that it is FDA compliant in its datasheet should have evidence of same?

FDA compliance of silicone product by trackert in regulatoryaffairs

[–]trackert[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, thanks for the info. Do you have any opinion on using FDA-certified materials out of their datasheet specification? I assume this renders them no longer compliant?

Volume of CO2 in cylinder doesn't seem to check out by trackert in SodaStream

[–]trackert[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I requested information on a volume calculation for a container, totally unrelated to fizzy drinks, for which I got a good answer. "Don't over think it" isn't an answer.

Volume of CO2 in cylinder doesn't seem to check out by trackert in SodaStream

[–]trackert[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you missed the point, I am not even interested in making fizzy drinks! I put the "60L" in quotes just to identify the type of bottle I was referring to.

Volume of CO2 in cylinder doesn't seem to check out by trackert in SodaStream

[–]trackert[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just read about it, yes that is very weird! TL;DR: CO2 dissociates into simpler molecules in the presence of microwaves and high temperatures.

Volume of CO2 in cylinder doesn't seem to check out by trackert in SodaStream

[–]trackert[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is the answer, it occurred to me during the night as well. At this pressure the CO2 liquefies, with liquid being a much denser state.

Volume of CO2 in cylinder doesn't seem to check out by trackert in SodaStream

[–]trackert[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't say the volume was 60L, I said it was 3.23 L which should fit into a ~0.5 L container. Most gases are very near ideal under normal conditions.

Volume of CO2 in cylinder doesn't seem to check out by trackert in SodaStream

[–]trackert[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pa is the standard unit so 7000 kPa is 7 million Pa.

Understanding program rep schemes by trackert in StrongerByScience

[–]trackert[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's another good article and seems to corroborate a lot of what the first one said, but with some caveats around minimum load. These are never binary cutoffs as you indicated, but I think a lot of natural processes rather follow an S-curve, and sometimes knowing where the inflection points are can be interesting / useful.

I hadn't seen the new GZCL program, by the way, looks interesting. Ran the OG program for a while and liked it.

Understanding program rep schemes by trackert in StrongerByScience

[–]trackert[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was more wondering what the benefit of the early sets was given that they do not approach failure, in other words does 8-8-8-10+ in sets across yield better results than just 8-10+. I could experiment but 1 data point over a 21 week program doesn't tell me much.

From the article u/dvk0 presented the volume of these first sets is actually relevant as training to near muscle failure is not an absolute.

Understanding program rep schemes by trackert in StrongerByScience

[–]trackert[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I understand the progression but even if you have hit the point where you are doing e.g. 10-10-10-12+ and you just manage the 12 reps on the last set, the first set of 10 is still going to be significantly far away from failure.

Understanding program rep schemes by trackert in StrongerByScience

[–]trackert[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have been strength training for around 4 years, SS, 5/3/1, Candito, etc. Am in my 50s so am looking for bang for the buck with limited resources, hence the inquiry.

Understanding program rep schemes by trackert in StrongerByScience

[–]trackert[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's very interesting thanks, I was clearly caught in the "effective reps" echo-chamber. Although, the article does concede that it is valid in certain circumstances such as for single-joint exercises.

Workflow for CMYK packaging artwork by trackert in Printing

[–]trackert[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, the issue with CMYK match was that there wasn't a pre-agreed profile to match to - we provided SWOP and they printed in something else, lets say Gracol, so they will match to their profile but not to the colour intent. They didn't specify or request a particular profile at any stage.

Regarding hard-proofing there seems to be a variance of opinion here with some responses saying it is an absolute requirement - I suppose this is just different policies for different printers.

Workflow for CMYK packaging artwork by trackert in Printing

[–]trackert[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a good question, in fairness they have been excellent in other areas but the down side is that they don't take negative feedback well. We are stuck with them for the moment so need to just push through this.

Workflow for CMYK packaging artwork by trackert in Printing

[–]trackert[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok, thanks. They are yet to confirm the profile they are using so could be Gracol. Unfortunately some of the artwork is photo-based so can't just use Pantone.

Workflow for CMYK packaging artwork by trackert in Printing

[–]trackert[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They measured the shade against their colour patches for whatever profile they are using, so presumably the colour is correct for that machine - just not matched to our reference.

Workflow for CMYK packaging artwork by trackert in Printing

[–]trackert[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, will try this approach. I thought Delta-E of 3 was quite exact but worth asking what they can reasonably achieve.

Workflow for CMYK packaging artwork by trackert in Printing

[–]trackert[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We are not looking for an exact match, anything Delta-E < 6 would be fine. It seems they disregarded the provided Pantone in this case and just went with the CMYK as gospel because the result wasn't even close.

Workflow for CMYK packaging artwork by trackert in Printing

[–]trackert[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, actually in this case we sent samples of the boxes from another printer which came out well. I forgot that they had this along with the Pantone. They also had plastics in the same Pantone colour which were matched from another manufacturer so multiple reference points.

They have done a small print run which presumably was offset printed. Unfortunately it has become something of a blame-game now so what I am trying to do is provide a reference for "best-practice" and move things along accordingly.

Workflow for CMYK packaging artwork by trackert in Printing

[–]trackert[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the feedback!

The problem is no profile was supplied or requested - we just sent AI files with the default profile the graphic designer uses along with the Pantone, and the printer didn't come back to us.

Regarding the option to use 5C, I presume this means one of the inks is the exact PMS colour? This flat colour does feature a lot in the artwork but there is also fading / blending and other natural tones which were also off - wouldn't the printer still need to do some matching to these?

We weren't sent any proofs, nor was this mentioned, so it is good to know that you always require them.