Are you one of them?
3 Likes
I could be persuaded
4 Likes
Well you’ve basically fucked yourself in terms of credibility in a case against them then by posting this. Having a vendetta will not look good lol
2 Likes
I don’t understand why you’re playing devils advocate to support a shady company and their habit of taking advantage of consumers.
I appreciate your input but at a certain point you’re coming off as a sympathizer to their tactics.
3 Likes
I don’t think @raghanded really cares what you think lol.
And he’s absolutely right, regardless if you agree or not.
He’s the only one telling you to move on and not waste more money. That’s the best advice imo, most other people here are just encouraging you to spend a lot more in time and money for at best 5k back.
I know personally I’d make whatever business decision was best for my company.
3 Likes
All I can say to this is they went around telling everyone our sensor was a lie and their unit was what people needed to buy and that we were lying to everyone about what ours could do and that their unit could see everything without limit:
We only sold a couple sensors because of smelliot and I know they sold quite a few units. 
Yes our system is based on the absorbance and transmittance of white light, which is exactly how we observe far away planets and galaxies to determine what they are made of and what kind of atmosphere they have. Just about every atom (except about 18) have a unique absorbance or transmittance spectra.
They are quite different and can be picked out of a mixture. We get quite a large amount of data even with a water clear solvent stream as no two solvents are exactly identical to one another.
Edit: our patent was filed 6 months before theirs was rushed to deployment as well.
Some other edits:
Yeah… After you heard about our unit.
ROFLMAO
I took one apart… It’s a uv wideband led he refuses to accept is in it along with a (diffraction grating and low quality camera in a box).
The sensor is from hammatsu but that’s about it. The source led is the wrong wavelength to ionize cannabinoids in order to get them to emit light. You need UVC not UVA. Much shorter and way more energetic. To top it off the visible light that comes off when you do hit it with the right wavelength is still not visible with this sensor.
Are we though? Again it’s how we observe far away planets and galaxies to find out what they’re made of is using white light and colorometry. 
Kinda sounds a lot like slander no?
So how about it? Seems what this post is all about to begin with no? Gonna hold true to your word or just say every sensor that was created was broken?
The acids might show up with a detection range of 340nm to 850nm.
But neutrals (distilled d9) comes off outside the range of detection around 310nm to 325nm. So how can the sensor possibly be used to detect neutral cannabinoids if they can’t even be seen within its detectable limited range?
Also this requires a stronger source light than the 365 nanometer source light that comes with the product.
It is impossible for a 365 nm light to ionize the molecule because does not provide enough energy to ionize the molecule to create light as it’s wavelength is longer than the emitted light.
Not to mention the low resolution camera the detector uses only has a 288 pixel cmos sensor.
The pigment tracker comes in at 1280 pixel cmos detector, which is much higher resolution and at a fraction of the cost (because it’s not a self-contained unit).
So that means the detector only has 288 points of input to detect a range of 510 different wavelengths.
5 Likes
I have no monkey in this circus and I have no knowledge as to the validity of either side of this argument but having said that, if any lawyer tells you that best case scenario if you win a court case you win $5,000 fire this idiot immediately.
$5000 is not even the tip of the iceberg.
There is obviously the $5,000 for the device, but there is also resources spent (a raw materials, solvents, lab space, work hours, electricity, insurance etc etc)
Loss of productivity (gains not realized because of expending resources described above, in the wrong direction )
Punitive damages.
While not the same, imagine this example- you have a $2 million facility and a salesman convinces you to buy this new valve which is supposed to be the latest and greatest that his company designs. Let’s say you paid $100 for it. It ends up that the valve has a design flaw and has failed and caused a fire in your facility which burnt down. Does the manufacturer owes you 100 bucks? Or will you sue him for your $2 million facility and all other losses incurred because of it?
Scammers count on people not following through with going after them.
12 Likes
Ok… this has nothing to do with a 5000 dollar device that may or may not work in some situations. Regardless…
Short path distillation is and has been performed for 100+ years without this device. Arguing it cost them even a dollar in productivity will be a hard sell when there are tens of thousands of labs performing SPD without it successfully, and I’m sure thousands of labs are currently distilling cannabinoids specifically successfully without the toy.
And lawyers count on idiots trying to argue cases they know are unwinnable and long-lasting. This is an unwinnable, unprofitable, and stupid case to attempt to bring to court.
1 Like
I just had to see the garbage you typed, checked it out and indeed it was a good choice ignoring your drivel.
You’re staying on mute.
It is meant as an illustration of different liabilities incurred by the manufacturer and as such it has everything to do with it.
When you have multiple experts some of them with PHD’s saying it does NOT work then in court you prove it.
And that’s exactly the point! Without the device you CAN successfully distill. Because the manufacturer has made claims, “skilled” operators have redirected and spent “resources” on a system that misled them into manufacturing “subpar” product.
And there is:point_down:
I’m sure there are SOME lawyers that are. It’s a silly argument to argue against or for.
“Unwinnable” maybe, that’s for the court to decide.
“Unprofitable” again, maybe, that’s for the court to decide.
“Stupid case to attempt to bring to court” well that depends on different parameters you want to include in the equation. For example, including but not limited to the “quality” of lawyer you use, the district in which you go to court in, the “strength” of your expert witnesses, the goal you are trying to achieve, ect ect.
1 Like
He’s right though
2 Likes
Thank you for your pearls of wisdom.
1 Like
Ignore what i said because I thought you were replying to me lol
1 Like
Thank you @TheVanillaGorilla for you replies, as that’s how I potentially see this playing out.
It’s really not about the $5k, it’s the principle behind the matter. These guys bold face lied to me over and over and over. Wasted tons of time, resources and mental health.
They used this forum to propel their own brands and business with shady and dishonest tactics. I use this forum as a tool and tend to trust the vendors on here more than most.
My fault for buying into their dribble? Yes. But did I or anyone else deserve to be intentionally deceived? No. Should they be allowed to continue to spew their bull shit claims that have been proven false over and over? No.
4 Likes
The product might suck, they maybe lied, you probably got burned
But the lawyers on both sides will definitely be the winners
9 Likes
That’s possibly the case but also it is possible you will find the lawyer that is willing to work on contingency base if it’s a big enough case or if the lawyer is “motivated by other means”.
3 Likes
I have been involved in a couple of lawsuits that I initiated. Won them but never recovered a nickle. The first one I was actually under the illusion that winning would mean some sort of monetary recovery… WRONG.
The second one I went into knowing there would be no financial win but I sure did enjoy messing up his hair. That one was actually fun and entertaining, but like most entertainment… tickets can cost money
let it go an move on if you expect to be reimbursed… if you just want to mess up their hair… get an attorney and enjoy the squirm
7 Likes
I love this reply so much
1 Like
In 2017 Tim called me and asked if I could provide the wavelength we were testing THC at in our HPLC. We talked back and forth a bit and a group of his engineers showed up at Summit a few weeks later with an R&D spectrometer. We tested distillate samples dissolved in ethanol. I actually did a lot of the dilutions myself. By 2018 they had a fraction finder product to test on a short path that was similar to what they are using now.
That research all eventually resulted in this paper which was released September/October 2019:
In-Situ-Fluorescence-Spectroscopy.pdf (548.8 KB)
The engineers (not chemists) are the authors of this paper, Kenneth and Chris. At the time of releasing this paper they were just exploring the underlying technology (fluorescence spectrometry) and checking if it’s useful in cannabis processing. This is R&D I found very cool and so I participated. The claims got out of hand and I stepped way back when I couldn’t sway the company.
This chart shows the fluorescent peaks we found in extracts dissolved in ethanol 10:1: Arometrix writes “These samples were tested to broadly investigate the diversity of the fluorescence response from different quality extract and distillate samples and to investigate any overall trends in these responses with respect to sample type. More rigorous studies on composition and fluorescence will be the focus of future work.” I’m trying to find where that future research is published.
This chart shows the fluorescent peaks found in some liquid standard samples at a concentration of 1mg/mL. Arometrix writes that " It should be noted that within the resolution of the spectroscopic measurements, ∆8-THC and ∆9-THC show very similar responses with respect to peak position and shape. This indicates that the investigated fluorescence measurement at the 365 nm excitation wavelength may not be able to distinguish between ∆8-THC and ∆9-THC in a sample, but instead can be used to detect the presence of total THC molecules." Already Arometrix is taking a step too far here.
To say that this peak “can be” used to detect the presence of THC at 1mg/mL is a serious claim to make. Everyone should hold ourselves to a higher standard than to take one single result from a liquid standard and extrapolate such a serious claim. The proper thing to say here if there isn’t further investigation in this paper is to say “could be” rather than “can be”. This is an early liberty they took with the science. This may seem small but it’s central to the success of the misdirection. When someone wants to buy the sensor of course it “can be” used to detect d9. Soon the unsuspecting client realizes that the sensor only “could be” used for THC detection and in almost all cases it can’t be used for it at all.
In this chart at 365nm excitation a tiny amount of blue light (400nm) was detected in a sample containing 1mg/mL d9 dissolved in methanol. That means the lower end of detection for this setup is 1g/L. When dissolving crystalline cannabinoids at those concentrations and exciting at 365nm, no blue light is produced. However, when dissolving mother liquor, where less cannabinoids are, a huge response is present. Find that info here: Fraction Finder Reviews - #176 by AlexSiegel. This shows that using solid samples does not produce the same results as their liquid standards, which should have warranted a major rehab in their R&D. All I have heard from their team since brining it to their attention in 2019 (I think) is denials, insults, and accusations.
Arometrix continues “Finally, the in-situ measurements showed the presence of the same peaks (this peak is simply blue light. Many things produce blue light at 365nm. This is another liberty) that were present during the measurement of the chemical standards and provided a proof of concept (lol) for the use of fluorescence spectroscopy as a control system for cannabis distillation… Future work will include determination of the specific fluorescing chemical constituents, improving the sensitivity and accuracy of the in-situ system, extending the technique to include extraction and wiped film distillation systems, and integration of the technique into an SPD control system for automated process control.”
Somewhere along the line Arometrix decided to go ahead and market the sensor to its customers using D9 detection as the central selling point even though none of their own underlying research directly supports that claim.
Yet here we are. Companies that support this sensor are only feeding the lie and have a responsibility to their customers to objectively look at if this is something they want to support.
8 Likes
Make sure to ask all jurors during selection if they have a degree in chemistry.
Also, can you quantify losses in production due to the device?
What is your highest level of education, and do you have any formal background in analytical chemistry @AlexSiegel ?
2 Likes