Qualitive Contaminant Finder has a nice ring to it.
You aren’t seeing the similarities in the holes to both your product claims now?
That’s vague, what’s claims are unsubstantiated? It’s not giving fake quantitative data
You remember Theranos’ deal with Walgreens?
Every popular commercial d8 testing lab…
4 Likes
You guys claim it finds pigments.
Alex has clarified on the limitations via florescent light down to 3 major types?
You have now clarified
And you don’t understand why I might see holes in your review of a competitors product using the same technology. The name is a misrepresentation entirely already.
I’m not following the theranos analogy.
I do understand the magisterchemist v kotk comparison.
Walgreens has cbd pillows and shit. Let’s be fair they’ll buy anything shady.
1 Like
That sounds like another good advertising idea if it pans out 
#FFCHALLENGE
Lol it’s the morning Alex. No need to rage my inbox and then block me like a child. I’m busy now at work. Maybe don’t be so mad that others can see holes in both companies.
2 Likes
How is it not “truly a pigment tracker”. Do you have one or have you got any data to share?
1 Like
Can we please try to keep this thread to Arometrix / Fraction Finder / Extraction Finder reviews and information?
I don’t think there is any danger that anyone reading this thread could possibly not know that Alex and PDX are involved with a competitor that also sells a a magic light box, which you apparently believe may be deficient with regards to one or more of their specific claims.
I haven’t used it, don’t really care about it either way, and can’t say that I know Alex or PDX.
I haven’t seen any claims that they specifically look for isolates. But Arometrix does claim that they can track cannabinoids, which would include isolates if true.
9 Likes
I can see it working qualitatively, in that you can probably find some place in the signal that will change with a change in fraction. This would be more like LC where you would have to know the elution order and you’re just looking for peaks.
I doubt it will be able to absolutely identify the constituent fractions though.
As for reverse engineering… as far as the hardware goes there is nothing to engineer. It’s a straighforward case of wavelength in and wavelength detected, and by wavelength we are talking about a spectrum which is quite generic in either case.
3 Likes
A spectrum which is listed on their data sheet.
The software is the real trick to reverse if one wanted to replicate the Arometrix box, especially if one wanted something polished and usable instead of a rudimentary “engineer can see output of FFT trace of signal from the detector.”
2 Likes
I’m sure there are generic off the shelf source code for FFT. If you boot LabView you can compile a virtual instrument in 30 minutes that will do it.
2 Likes
I respectfully suggest you’re not thinking about it correctly…
with lemonade, you’ve got lemonade. period.
with lemons, you can MAKE lemonade.
you can also make lemon meringue pie, and invisible ink, a battery…
If you’re motivated enough you can extract the limonene (etc) then go after cannabinoids with it… Terpenes as a solvent - #9 by stoopkid
chances are you can even get a fluorescent signal out of a fraction finder (probably achieve that with the lemonade too 
)
can you explain these results?
there is more THCA in the 20mg isolate than the 44mg HTE, yet the HTE shows a MUCH bigger signal. if it is the THCA responsible for the signal, that makes zero sense.
first peak is the internal standard. second is THC. more THC doesn’t == more signal on Fraction Finder. Why?
or maybe you could run me through the samples shown here.
is sample 3 cannabinoid free? or the most pure sample you received? makes a huge difference to the interpretation of the data.
12 Likes
the problem is that you have a complex matrix with lots of contributing abosrbances, which is why it’s so difficult to take raw signals and make any conclusion other than “something in A is different than B”
Which is also why I have my doubts…
2 Likes
Verbiage and marketing are the lesson here. They show peaks. They show contaminants. The programming is definitely the value. The data is set with an identification marker. I think we all get it that loose marketing words probably are the root of the issue. No matter the light box or brand attributed. This tech is half baked overall.
I’ve got no skin in this, and know and like both companies and their owners and people involved.
That doesn’t change my words, and I don’t care if I’m the bad guy for saying the truth while others try to inflate one another.
I still fail to see the value as a programmer. I mean it’s sweet that they can display measurements on the screen and all but at this level of development, for most people, I would wager that inconsistent data is worse than no data at all. Obviously @cyclopath knows what he is doing, but if you hand the device to your average lab tech, how will it actually assist the tech in their usual SPD run? Maybe, just maybe, if you were running the same material for numerous runs, you might be able to glean something from the data, but if you are running different material every day, how are you supposed to know what you are actually seeing?
3 Likes
Outside looking in: my understanding is it’s knowing when to swap glass based on peaks. Not be the end all be all hplc gc-fid ms nmr that you strap to your device and just know but somehow yall arguing about isolates. Something not at all mentioned, but somehow yall infer.
Wouldn’t years of data and customers aid this?
just to clarify. I’ve got both the Extraction Finder and the Fraction Finder.
the fraction finder is a distillation aide. the extraction finder uses the same tech in a slightly different format, and is designed to track cannabinoids in solvent as they are extracted to take the need for a skilled operator out of the equation.
said skilled operator has to make a call based on COLOR. which IS a useful metric. so long as you’re extracting the same biomass at the same temp. to confirm, one does post extraction analytics. if nothing ever changes, you’re optimized.
but biomass, solvent temp, and other variables often DO change.
to try and take that out of the equation I called Arometrix up and asked if they could build such a thing.
IIRC there was a comment of “yeah we built something like that for …” during the followup conference call.
if it’s not tracking cannabinoids (and I’m not convinced that it is), then it is probably a whole lot less useful to me or anyone else trying to use it the way I am.
Does that mean I’m using it wrong?
1 Like
If you can make it work for you, that’s literally all that matters. Who gaf whether someone calls that ‘wrong’ based on some white paper.
2 Likes
I thought it was able to tell fools gold from real gold.
Maybe melt some 99.9% thca isolate and play spd for no reason.
Add 5-10 years of customers peak data and experience and it might as well be an HPLC (lol I’ve seen how accurate those can be) or GC (operator means everything)
But for you guys to hold it in the same category of expectations is kind of mind blowing. Even I’m not that silly to believe it knows what the hell it sees. It’s all programming.
The fact theirs can be branching out and helping people based on so much data is impressive.
I don’t share in the “woe is me I’m too advanced for this toy” but I absolutely understand anyone else who is a 5-10 year lab veteran who has had consistent time to play with equipment has a higher expectation always.
When the vendor says that it lets you track your cannabinoids, it’s not unreasonable to expect that it should be able to do that thing.
9 Likes
Have you bought an hplc or gc yet?
Ordered testing?
Sent the same sample in twice?
Because you’re in for a world of laughter.
1 Like