Oops, I coppied SPDKing

To begin this conversation I want to say myself and others were seriously duped by Alex Siegel and it has become painfully obvious in his haste he has talked poorly upon his peers who helped him succeed and everyone around him who he thought he owned thier knowledge. I spent money with him and now I am forced to keep my identity secure to avoid being publicly attacked by him after these revelations.

Data: the data Alex is pushing is 100% made up. The data Alex is pushing is entirely fraudulent. Alex decided to invent his own non imperial data interpretation. I began noticing this when I saw chlorophyll is entirely not in its position where it needs to be. Alex superimposed data screens as facts while denying any and all other known data correspondence in the market or scientific documentation that is available on market. The data Alex is pushing is not only not quantifiable but it is also not accurate or repeatable. Each sample generates slightly different result. Each sample shows data in the wrong locations. The pigment tracker had so much noise in it that Alex decided to interpret the noise and false data as factual data. We have all been duped, and Alex made a killing selling these devices he didn’t it even develop realistically, or perfect the data acquisition. For about 10-30 bucks each he decided to upcharge what the competition makes for profit for instance on a fraction finder where the price maybe higher but has same margin I’m guessing.

Hardware: there is what looks to be like no uv detection happening at all. Inside the device it seems that there is some kind of a adafruit style ccd chiplet. I will further investigate what he selected but I can assure you this device only sees color. What Alex has done is treated us all like ignorant bafoons. After talking to a couple serious industry techs, specialists and heavily levy’d knowledge centers for the specific details it has become prevalent that Alex didn’t even use any uv detection optics or hardware. What I found inside my pigment tracker was basically a hardware (non optical prism) that cannot repeat the defraction process repeatably. As well as there is no ultra violet signal appropriations. Alex has simply made a rudimentary and inaccurate light splitter that uses a colorimetry style interpretation. It seems like he is sending this signal through to a open source software base that only interprets wide band data and not particular data and there is no deleting or removed out of signal-wrong data. Like lights, false signals, noise etc. He has bamboozled all of us on his claims that fraction finder is not a detector and his is.
This type of projection had made me curious. So I decided to open one up after realizing as a customer I was being abused verbally and repeated propaganda and nonsense about other products so I would purchase and use his device. After opening up my fraction finder it has become obvious the fraction finder actually has a uv exciter, and a uv detector and all the research and build out design required to be a uv detector.
Alex didn’t put any effort into it. And he also technically makes money on freeshare software he used to interpret his data Wich he sells with the device and I’m sure that’s not entirely legit.
The light he sends through id of a non Validated and bogus flashlight. I began to realize he was gaslighting the entire time about his product vs his hated arch nemesis arometrix. However untill further review it has become apparent he is using colorimetric data only and color type chiplet similar to a camera ccd that was modified into a hobbyist light on off detector.
Alex uses absolutely no uv detection and he barely had anything excited becusee the light coming from his flashlight almost entirely dilutes the received signal. In uv detection the light is the trigger, the light must turn off, and then the material to be investigated glows slightly sending back a response to a detector. Unlike the fraction finder Wich uses a correct uv exciter it also receives the data first and deletes the color it’s shooting off, while allowing the glowing uv coming off the sample to actually be measured. This is not the case. Alex is using colorimetry and deceiving the consumer base into thinking it’s a uv detector. Or that it actually reads uv signatures or signals. It does not. It just interprets the flash light and the material itself whose behavior of light that would be subjected to what that flashlight produces and what its sorta emitting off the material sample.

Conclusions:. Alex is reselling all the info he has learned from his peers. In fact his pigment free distillation process is basically a simpler and not as detailed version of the processes I learned from several people in the bay area to the east coast. The only difference is Alex blends his words so you don’t exactly catch where his speeches or support advice comes from. Secondly his process is vague and actually isn’t as detailed as others who had released it years before him. It is very bad this guy makes money off free info everyone else posts. His crystalization process came from someone he did a consult for and accidentally found out what they were doing. This process was also good for another industry so there’s nothing unique about it. It’s similar to dropping sugars from crude oil in separation tanks. He lied to myself and everyone about the pigment tracker while attempting to cause slander to his competition for sales. This would have been okay if what he said was true. I apologize publicly for the things I said because of what Alex told me.
There are not much similarities or technologies that weave themselves to determine if pigment tracker or fraction finder is the best tool for the job. Let me write out comparisons;

Pigment tracker.
Not uv detector.
No uv detector parts.
Extremely noisy electronics and signal.
Non repeatable.
Not useful in motion.
Hobbyist chiplet for image acquisition.
Form of splitting light into colorimetric data acquisition.
No data can be validated, nearly wrong locations on display software.
Uses flashlight with bogus uv imposed bulb that isn’t real, only some uv triggering but not genuine.

Fraction finder.
Genuine uv emitter/exciter with uv detection custom board.
Repeatable and accurate every time.
Deletes noise from room and exciter.
Validated positions for chlorophyll and all similar points of interest.
Custom software to interpret and read uv data.

I don’t feel bad for saying this. Alex has a bogus way of saying “the industry deserves better”. He is right. Alex should not be slandering and causing bogus claims to spread about others he wants to compete with. Please feel free to take apart your pigment tracker and post what I had mentioned here in pics so the community can validate these facts. The industry Trully deserves better than Alex, his scams, his stolen ip he takes claim to and how he made us turn on the people who introduced the fraction finder without any empirical data or facts other than posting a video of someone’s fraction finder where apparently the sensors fell out of their positions and claimed it doesn’t work.

-very angry customer of Alex.

in summary elliott wants you to buy his shitty light detector instead of alexsiegels shitty light detector so he’s pretending to be a customer to gain some false trust

big brain move

22 Likes

and im not good at this… LOL :rofl: :joy: :rofl:

10 Likes

I feel like this is a direct attack on @AlexSiegel but isnt the pigment tracker also made and designed by @Zack_illuminated

When i talked to Zack at bizcon he very much made it sound like it was on the cusp of some very cool tech using the pigment tracker and to their defense it seems like he knows what he is talking about and doesnt waste him time on false projects.

3 Likes

Hello, Zach is also using colorimetry and has super imposed data too. He has a video that actually shows when the light develops reduced signal due to fluid flow blockage in the condenser arm. I’m not sure since I only did business with Alex on this topic, however I was unable to see any valid data with Zach or anyone’s colorimetric data acquisition devices. Anecdotal information is not factual data. If these guys are using non uv detection devices and making claims otherwise, and subsequently placing thier findings as factual data points(which cannot be validated by any known texts or papers in all of history); than I would continue to take anything they claim with a grain of salt and entertainment factor only. In fact years ago Zach used all his efforts to prove to the industry his davinci didn’t work for the required data consumers were wanting…
When Zach released his video and the actual video run-live together it was prevalent he had flow issues, his detector could only interpret loss of light from flow issues. I’m not here to talk about Zach or his repeated nonsense about the beer Lambert effect that has nothing to do with cannabis uv detection empirical facts. I’m here to talk about Alex being a con man who really just attacked everyone and lied about his product. I personally feel bad for how I treated his opposed peers during his tirade to sell his recycled knowledge from others and pigment tracker. Please open yours up and see for yourself.

I have talked to Alex a few times in regard to the pigment tracker and I wasn’t completely sold on it’s capabilities… But I wouldnt call it fraud…

1 Like

Who cares?…

You are essentially just a business bad mouthing your competitor lol

8 Likes

I am one of Alex’s customers. I own equipment from half a dozen vendors.

elliott buys his competitions products to better reverse engineer them

8 Likes

How is this pigment tracker any different from a UV-VIS spectrometer? Sounds like the wheel trying to be reinvented.

3 Likes

That gargantuan fat ass sold me my second short path in 2017. He has his uses, that’s why he’s useful. He’s more boring than you think.

No one makes fun of you for being fat, most people just comment about the hitler

Can we do an AMA @Lightbulb ? No one cares about the pigment tracker but a ton of members here missed you and your input.

3 Likes

His favorite rapper is adolf

2 Likes

Hey Elliot, can you show where anyone stated the data would be quantitative? The qualitative side was worked out with pigment standards

You realize it’s a drop ship model and we know Tim bought one?

2 Likes

https://future4200.com/search?context=topic&context_id=191325&q=@spdking%20Trully&skip_context=true

Your idiosyncratic behavior is easy to spot from a mile away. How many defamation lawsuits have you lost at this point?

4 Likes

i think its pretty funny 11 people thought this was BD from the other thread… i hate to see what those people thought fake lanphan was… LOL

whats the difference in a model you drop ship and one you ship yourself?? and why cant competitors buy your product? didnt Alex have a fraction finder too??

1 Like

The drop ship model just means we know they got one

I made the fraction finder pigment tracker enclosure for Alex under a licensing agreement, he does literally everything else

1 Like

dont you mean pigment tracker?? so alex is the one that made the fraction finder too??

1 Like

I’m dumb, yes, pigment tracker

2 Likes

In general, the pigment tracker is a very simple device. It consists of a video camera, diffraction grating, and a light source. From there, the calibration of the spectra will determine where things should lay. Once you calibrate the spectra (currently it is only capable of 2 wavelengths but I have been working to expand this to however many points we need) the data-points line up to where its calibrated to. So if the calibration is off, so will be your dataset. Just because the calibration is off does not mean the data displayed is completely wrong - just offset from its real nano-meter wavelength due to an incorrect calibration (user error).

The data he is showing is a live feed from the video camera, even if it doesn’t line up perfectly, which is a typical calibration issue (again typically caused by user error). This is a very simplified system that uses a video camera and diffraction grating (to save on cost). That does not mean the data is automatically false or superimposed (calm down elliot).

The unit has both UV and RGBW source lights, with the UV at a 90 degree angle to the detector (aka fluorescence). This gives the user more ability to detect products than strictly UV alone, as just about all molecules have a known absorbance spectra and all are completely different (see image below). It is setup for both fluorescence and absorbance spectroscopy without the need of a optically transparent tube to which the device is attached to via a hinged bracket. Unfortunately, the UV aspect will miss a ton of data and that is where the absorbance spectroscopy comes into play.

I have taken the freeware software that was previously used and have included many more features that no other sensor has to offer. To include a trainable AI neural network. I am 100% working with @AlexSiegel on this project and we have seen great results across the board. The AI is super cool… It can pretty much learn any spectra you want to teach it. Then through the magic of AI, it gives the logical correct output based on what it was trained to do. I prefer to only release 95% or better, preferably 98% or better trained/generalized/validated datasets.

For someone that keeps going on about UV detection (elliot) you would be heart broken to know the “flashlight” he uses is a 365nm band-pass filtered UV source light at a 90 deg input (aka fluorescence) that has absolutely no white light in the source signal. Aka a properly designed system (something you know nothing about). Oh and you just can’t help to keep plugging the “fraction finder”… LOL. Might just call ours the “Fraction Tracker”. (Better Name Anyhow)

I love how much you hate “colorometry” (elliot). Do some basic research to find out that nearly all elements on the Periodic Table have an Absorbance/Transmittance Spectra but nearly none of them have a fluorescence spectra. :roll_eyes:

By all means take apart the Pigment Tracker, that is why phillips screws are used, so you can see how it works. It is a high def video camera and a diffraction grating. The standard unit is pretty simple to build and Alex is very clear about how its built. It is designed to save the user money instead of buying overpriced sensors that have half the capability or simply just don’t work as advertised.

To be frank, I have the first distillation sensor patent. Just look it up. Filed Jan 22, 2018. I am not here to argue with children. This is old news at this point that obviously someone (elliot) just couldn’t help but to bring up.

If anyone wants to learn about known proven scientific facts, check out this link about the Beer-Lambert Law. You heard it right, its a law of physics that old elliot to this day wants to call “nonsense”. Absorbance spectroscopy utilizes the Beer-Lambert law, but fluorescence does not.

Absorbance spectroscopy is how we observe far away planets and galaxies to determine what their chemical makeup is, both planetary and atmospheric, by utilizing an even further away star (Hydrogen Fusion Reactor = all the same) as the source light. This is a proven system.

If anyone has any questions about the sensor I would be glad to help.

16 Likes