I’d recommend reading again. There’s good data showing that the fraction finder does not work as advertised.
Summary is that @arometrix and @spdking have claimed many times that the fraction finder senses blue light made from fluorescent cannabinoids and they’ve billed more than one forum member in this thread thousands of dollars chasing that idea. Clearly shown above the fraction finder does not see the relevant cannabinoids.
This isn’t noise. It’s hopefully going to change things for the better. Every fraction finder sitting unused is cash wasted by one of our industry labs. That’s not good for anyone.
If arometrix comes in with some great data I’ll eat my words. So far nothing to justify the claims they’ve made in the field.
Can we invite back @spdking so he can respond to the roasting of his awful product? I miss his fat thumbed angry responses and the insulting of every competitor in the industry.
Dude has more beefs than Kanye, and it’s hilarious.
This whole forum is noise, though less so since I put spdking on mute.
But you’ve got a good number of parties that are unrelated to those slanging the old gizmo or the new one all saying that the old one does not do what it says it does.
From what I can tell, the new light gizmo is functionally the same as the old light gizmo, but doesn’t make the same claims. It makes different claims that appear to be substantiated.
Unfortunately, I don’t personally really care all that much about the things that the new gizmo (same as the old gizmo) can actually do.
I’m pretty pissed that I’ve spent around ten thousand freedom dollars (about 1.5x that in Maple dollars) on iterations of the old gizmo based on claims made about the things it can do.
I and many others have been told that this thing sees cannabinoids.
I have yet to be able to find evidence that that is true. And I’ve spent a lot of time and a lot of money looking.
Time and money that could have been very well spent elsewhere.
To be frank, I don’t give a single flying fuck about pigments. I care about cannabinoids. Cannabinoids are money. Pigments are at best a pain in the ass.
I can understand your uproar, but yours doesn’t come with a buy my gizmo pitch. Yours is the meat of a real review.
My review is still accurate. Half baked light gizmos.
One trying to capitalize on the others review thread without a solution. Only trying to inflate upon issues due to personal grievances. Which I can absolutely relate to and admire the make your own product approach, but they’re both in the same category of half baked for me, and the approach isn’t positive for sales to me. When I have colored diamonds available to truly test the Pigment product. I’d say I’m interested in the technology, but it’s clear to me both companies have some more renditions / evolutions of next generations to really make it clearer of their purposes and claims of capabilities.
Have no real interest in selling sensors. Ready to give the tech to all. I’ll get the files together and start a new thread and finally drop the open-source release.
I am though a little disappointed with how the whole situation played out, but glad to see others are speaking up about it’s functionality. At this point our reputation has been stained by @spdking and nothing can be done about it.
Not sure how people are refuting scientific research. The fluorescence signal for cannabinoids is around 450 nm. The noise associated with the last picture is literally the properties of my dab. If it’s a hot dab you’ll see one clean peak like this.
You’re taking a dab and looking for a signal. That has nothing to do with how the fraction finder is marketed or how the people who paid for it expect it to work, if it’s even “working” to see cannabinoids during your dab.
Can you try to repeat the experiment I posted? Notice that I included a control of 0mg CBD/20mL.
Not until I find one that actually does what it says on the tin.
Then I’ll scream “you need to buy this magic box” to everyone who makes the mistake of getting within earshot of me and mentions cannabinoids.
Though the odds are pretty good it won’t be me selling them, and I probably won’t even be smart enough to get an affiliate link set up.
Unfortunately, if I had to place a bet, I’d bet the BR sensor does what it says on the tin. I very very much doubt I’ll ever be able to afford one at $70k tho.
I’m going to say this now so nobody claims I know everything. Cannabinoids fluoresce at 450nm whether you heat them or not. The bigger question which I assume the paper from the 70’s was trying to answer is what happens when you heat them up. My answer to someone who asks what’s in the vapor is likely going to be cannabinoids and byproducts which haven’t been tested for fluorescence.
Why would I repeat an experiment that are outside of the bounds for the equipment
Also why don’t you repeat the experiment with my suggestions. I posted CBGA looks like I see a signal. Can I try it with Decarbed CBD sure but that wouldn’t help your argument that it’s from heat degraded byproducts.
I’ve said multiple times that I think it’s likely not heat degradation that you are detecting. It’s likely plant pigments. That is especially true in your cbga which is surely crystallized from a pigmented mother-liquor (not distillate). I have no idea what you’re seeing in your dabbing “experiments.”
The experiment I posted is absolutely within the bounds of what arometrix claims their equipment can do. There should be a strong fluorescent peak from both posted concentrations of CBD. There isn’t.
