I am not here to hype you up on some product we make, only to identify how it operates and to answer any questions as to its operation. If it is your desire to buy the others product; so be it and Good Luck!
We have a defined library of Solvents and some Cannabinoids. Taking it further is not much of an issue.
Btw, how does one define UV ???
I sure hope the idea that 380nm to 750nm is UV, as that is the VISIBLE light spectrum.
Sharing information is of no issue to me, a simple Visible light Diffraction grating and a USB Video camera is really all that is needed…
DIY Light Spectrometer - webcam & diffraction grating - Applied Science at its Best!
watch?v=m6zpNSoQTV8
Love & Respect my dude!
FYI: The visible light colors Fluoresced by UV tend to also be the same as Visible Light Absorption… The DaVinci Sensor can identify nearly one quadrillion combinations! Your computer monitor uses only 16.9 Million combinations of Red / Green / Blue / White to create the colors of the rainbow you see daily.
256 Red x 256 Green x 256 Blue = (256 ^ 3 = 16,777,216) The other 122,784 values are for grey-scale.
That seems a bit grandious; but i love the idea of having the FF on a column; all the benefits of running a manual column; without the headaches that come with an automated prep system; how extensive is the minor library of the FF? Or is it essentially for CBD, D9 and chlorophyll (only things I’ve seen it able to detect publicly)
To be blunt; in no way have we ever lied about our sensor and its capability to determine basic fraction state. It can detect light / heavy terpenes from cannabinoids from tails from bottoms. If your eye can perform the act, why cannot it be done by an electronic device with a much higher capability to distinguish different ratios of color? Our sensor is literally 390x more sensitive than the 16.9 million color output of a computer monitor or cellphone. (100,000 / 256 = 390.625) Per channel {Red, Green, Blue}.
Yes we have a defined library of basic solvents and some cannabinoids.
Our system operates on a matched transmitter / receiver pair that once calibrated can ignore ambient conditions and the only respond to actual product color change. It is based around the visible spectrum, ie 380nm to 750nm. We can add UV fluorescence if it is really desired, it gives basically the same results; as our detector will easily detect any colors fluoresced by the cannabinoids via a UVa wide-band source.
We look at the shifts in absorbance / transmittance of specific wavelengths from our broad spectrum white source light to determine overall product color and state. We can take it further by scanning a specific product from 380nm to 750nm with a simulated spectra (found in other industries to replicate real source lights). From here we can determine its most absorbed color, which then is best to use as your source light due to it will be able to detect the most slight changes compared to a white light. This basically acts as a magnifying glass on the product looking for ever subtle changes.
Personally I prefer to operate with the with light mode as it still gives excellent visual data and can cover more bases than a finely tuned color. Small changes in the specific color mode may appear as drastic off chart anomalies compared to with the white light, or as nothing at all if you are using the wrong light color. For example, if your product is yellow and your using a red source light, the changes will be very very slight, but with a blue source light will be extreme, while white will provide the data of both but be balanced and neither extreme nor too small to notice.
I see you keep regurgitating the same nonsense. You are great at coping and pasting from Google to attempt to explain what you have while confusing customers in circles and not actually saying anything at all…
Your sensor absolutely shows nothing. You are super imposing a reading from the screen as interpreted data that can be used. It’s not. The only data you have avail is the continuous blockage of light or less blockage of light. Manipulation of light waves as blockages that determine what you are seeing either is or isn’t flowing over the sensor is what you are capturing as data. Anybody with basic understanding with spd sees through your claims of identification. You are super imposing a result that isn’t happening with your explanation trying to confuse people one by one over and over.
All you claim to have is a correlated light signature with radiant colorometry to chemical data. What you actually have is anecdotal evidence that isn’t factual. It’s only represented as a semi visual interpretation but with no actual corelated data behind it. The reason is because you need to actually own and opperate a high end analytical colorometry data compiler to run against your NON CALIBRATED - NON NIST OFFERED davinci. This means every reading you have from your unit live you should be putting through a master device to reference the data either way. Meaning not every customer will even remotely mirror sensor results unless it’s calibrated to a standard. Wich it isn’t.
You have been embelishing about the features and function of your device since you’ve seen me release mine before you. It is a basic colorometry device. What you intend to do with it and what you explain it can do is clearly not true if anyone looks at your charts you have posted.
The data from the davinci is marginaly 1% more than your eyes can see, and 1-2% of what the fraction finder collectively offers.
The FF can be set up to see anything. You find the desired uv spec you want. You type it in, name it and it can see it. There’s no limit. @Apothecary36
When you run the material through, you’ll see your spike. You can then apply that corelated visual you’ve seen to a uv Spectra and then Save that. The idea is it shows you everything not just one thing. On it currently ate the easiest ones saved like chlorophyll and d9 and cbd and similar to that.
Isn’t the real issue that a better fraction means a tighter cut, which means your yields will suffer.
From an economic standpoint you have to wonder if someone is willing to pay more for 95% THC distillate vs 85% distillate. When dabbed, you would probably not be able to tell the difference.
Wouldnt you rather know you are producing a more pure product for your customers to consume vs being able to make slightly more volume at a lower purity?
No, the best product is the product that offers best value for money to the consumer
If my yields suffer i need to charge more. If the market supports that, fine.
One could argue that the “impurities” might contribute to the psychoactive effects as well.
I understand there is “biggest dick” thing going on with this whole purity thing, but if you want 100% pure material, just put down a big chromatographic skid and get it over with.
Honestly, I would love to throw some support and assistance behind this effort. I personally never had an issue with @spdking until this thread. But now it’s a bit personal if what @Zack_illuminated is saying is true. I’m still waiting to see if the daVinci actually works as advertised.
4+ years ago I was with a friend picking up an SPD from him. I had just left my longtime career in aerospace and was looking for ways to apply my knowledge to the Cannabis market. @spdking spent over an hour with me in his Santa Cruz warehouse explaining that what I was proposing (color / absorbance patterns) for trying to determine fractions was 100% impossible.
I shouldn’t have listened back then I’ve since found in this industry to never take someones input as fact.
@Zack_illuminated - What is your plan for the DaVinci? Open source patented? I saw patent pending, but you have stated on open-sourcing. Just wondering what your future plans are for this, as I would love to assist and support if it ends up going the OSS route.
I’m still waiting to see if the daVinci actually works as advertised.