Ian,
thanks for the quick suggestion.
On Mon, 2013-03-11 at 18:34 +0000, Ian Tickle wrote:
> Personally I tend to avoid the systematic vs random error distinction
> and think instead in terms of controllable and uncontrollable errors:
> systematic errors are potentially under your control (given a
> particular experimental setup), whereas random errors aren't.
>
Should you make a distinction then between controllable (cycling cuvette
in and out of the holder) and potentially controllable errors
(dilution)? And the latter may then become controllable with a
different experimental setup?
Cheers,
Ed.
--
I don't know why the sacrifice thing didn't work.
Science behind it seemed so solid.
Julian, King of Lemurs
