Talk to me about broad-ass peaks @ 450-475 nm
From: https://future4200.com/uploads/default/original/2X/a/ade023df12fe133eaa9112daa89cbf91582622cc.pdf
5 Likes
Can the FF be hooked up to a PC? I wonder if it would work with spectragryph
2 Likes
About to ask permission and just fuck with one lol
If so firmware hax
Everyone so mad I shut down haters: ligma
1 Like
Never said they didn’t collect data, I’m sure they had to collect all kinds of data to even build the damn thing. Your argument to build off customer R&D was what I took issue with because I had more than enough data to collect profiles for the specific targets I was looking for. I didn’t need to poll my customers data to generate profiles from. While new data is always good to have, you shouldn’t put out a product like this without giving a big ass disclaimer that you’re probably not going to get any meaningful results unless you are running the limited use cases the mfg outlined.
I dunno man, I really want these devices to work, they would be sick as fuck to implement in numerous places along the production pathway. Just seems like the tech isn’t ready yet.
4 Likes
I don’t know the history so I’m looking for more communication.
I respect your view, but as a customer that’s implying they didn’t do the hard work to get started and here they are…
I think people are frustrated & disappointed to have another thread derailed. To have another instance where someone had something to contribute, but either they saw this was going to shit or it was locked & they couldn’t continue the discourse. To have someone like our mods take time out of their day to make sure future readers can glean something in a semi-cohesive manner.
I don’t think that’s anything to gloat about.
While I probably should’ve dropped this reply in the EC split, I felt this should be here because you do in fact know better.
There is zero need to stir up shit outside of the DMs unless there’s something egregious & I can’t think any of your “haters” have done anything on that level.
If you’re upset no one put hands on you at the OK class, I think you’re falling short on recognizing that time, money & respect have significance with people.
Why jeopardize the experience for some 20+ people? That’s time they took out of their schedule to attend. Money out of their pocket to travel, get lodging, pay for the class. And that’s for anyone in the class. What about someone like @THCFarms who is busting ass for a loved one?
How about respect for @Dred_pirate? Or the guys at Boro?
Take a step back & evaluate the importance of internet squabbles. I’d venture a guess we’ve all got more pressing matters.
If you’ve got anything further, you know how to get at me.
As a great man once said,
18 Likes
If this goes down, I totally want to put our sensor up for comparison. Changing fractions solely by what the sensor shows. (How it was developed)
3 Likes
I just fundamentally don’t understand why @arometrix won’t give a straight answer:
Does the device see CBD/THC is if is the only thing in the detector? Yes or no?
I think it’s pretty clear that it’s supposed to see those compounds. The thesis of the equipment is that it detects fluorescence from cannabinoids. How it sees other compounds is irrelevant if it does not detect specifically the ones that are being targeted.
If it does, then it sounds like there’s a service and support issue. If it doesn’t, then it sounds like the marketing claims need to change very drastically.
10 Likes
if the cannabinoids are going by at 90% purity, spotting them is a much simpler task than spotting them at 0.1mg/ml in solvent.
my guess is that the excitation wavelength needs to change for the Extraction Finder to work.even then there is probably going to be a sensitivity issue. In my current use case my tincture is in the 0.5 to 0.9mg/ml range at the end of the run. I’ll run a dilution series with it after it comes out of the rising film and let y’all know what I see.
the Fraction Finder is designed to look at much higher concentrations, and may well be useful for it’s intended purpose even if it is responding to the wrong molecule. especially if that “wrong molecule” is a cannabinoid derivative produced in the boiling flask that co-distills with your target.
during distillation there are all sorts of other clues that one is in/leaving/entering a fraction, one doesn’t necessarily need to be measuring the primary component in any given fraction to offer suggestions for which fraction one is in. yep. there are a couple of “gold” looking fractions. if those fluoresce differently, then the problem is solved. doesn’t matter how you solved it. (we’ve got two. and SPD that need spun up…)
edit: turned my tincture up to 11 today (post rising film: evaporated 90%+ of the solvent), and just barely saw a signal in the “D9” range. will figure out what that means for a lower bounds via HPLC.
7 Likes
This is the most basic question that should be answered by @arometrix
Side note:
I was just reading my old messages from arometrix and when i asked when the ultra sensor would be released they said “it will be released when we are confident with its performance.”
I dont get the impression you guys are very confident in its performance at this time so i really question decision to release this to the public.
4 Likes
The fraction finder does not work correctly for indicating when to change spd fractions. Cannabinoids inversely correlate to fluorescent signal during distillation. On the other hand Pigment directly correlate to the fluorescent response.
The only reason why the fraction finder MIGHT seem to work SOMETIMES is a phenomenon called turbidity. Turbidity is essentially the inability for light to enter or exit a sample.
Turbidity causes the reading on the fraction finder to go down when too much pigment is present. Essentially the pigments block all of the available light and the reading is none. This is why so much research done on fluorescence are done on DILUTE samples.
When pigments are low (successful processing usually) the reading on the fraction finder indicates that the processing was unsuccessful.
Arometrix got lucky that turbidity lowers and raises signal at almost kind of the right times. It’s dumb luck at best and negligence at worst. Pair that with @spdking and here we are
1 Like
Not sure if it’s been mentioned, but when using UV light, keep in mind that glass will block UV transmission. Perhaps quartz test vials would help the UV light actually make it to the sample, leading to increased fluorescence of the sample.
7 Likes
You’re right that glass can block UVa. However a lot of glass still transmits something like 80% of the 365nm light and around 80% of the visible light too.
2 Likes
Glass/plastic is really only viable for UVa/VIS 320 nm+
Quartz is optimal for both UV/VIS at 190/200nm+.
If you’re using glass for higher energy emission, it could have a small effect on results. But nothing too significant, just a bit of interference.
4 Likes
I wonder about the geometry of the glass, since this is meant to be strapped to a cylindrical borosilicate tube. Will some of the excitation source refract into the detector?
4 Likes
This is something I’d definitely look into. It does absorb strongly in the UV region the further down you go. So if they’re at 330-350nm+, it shouldn’t really be that big of a deal.
However, my knowledge on glass/quartz absorbance is primarily limited to the use of standard 10mm cuvettes with uniform geometry and pathlength in a UV/VIS spectrophotometer. VERY different situation here. This difference of quartz/glass could be more significant than you would originally think, depending on several factors.
4 Likes
Yep, that IS the technological hurdle for using photons that are waving faster to induce a stronger response. 
2 Likes
Cuvettes are square? Fluorescence spectroscopy needs the excitation light at 90° I believe
2 Likes