Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Solved… !
I have been using an iPhone 6S+ and keep up with the updates. And there s the problem… One of the ( I think 9.2 ) update messed it up. The key piece of information I can provide is that the SCiO would connect for almost exactly 17 seconds. I would disconnect and reconnect for 17 seconds. Wash, rinse, repeat…
I acquired an old iPod ( v8.4 ), downloaded the app and low and behold I have a solid connection…
The day I figured this out, today, I received a production model SCiO.
Im going so see what happens when 2 SCiOs connected to different hosts are scanning at the same time. If I scan the same spot at the same time, I think I should get the same result… wonder if I will…
I think it might be able to do that, but you would literally need to scan EVERY BITE, then it would only register if there is more than 5%.. Yes, the SCiO can detect to 1%ish but to screen false positives the cutoff between safe and death needs to be there. But nobody can guarantee a cutoff point. SCiO is NOT a medical device and shouldn’t be relied on for life and death problems. Keep it light, like is this going to be a sweet grape, or tart. But again what exactly is sweet?
NOTE:
It has been demonstrated that the closer to the equator, more spices used in food. The closer to the poles use less spice. The general consensus is that food spoils faster the closer you get to the equator so more spice is needed to keep the food safe. The poles have natural refrigeration most of the year…
rejsharp has it right, the first step is to identify what EXACTLY are you trying to figure out. Think of the SCiO as a really fancy microscope. You can just look at stuff and see how cool it is, or you can look for something specific and cure cancer ( oddly enough it seems marijuana kills cancer cells ). The SCiO takes a microscopic picture that is seen in a graph of wavelength .vs. intensity. The picture is beautiful, but like fine art, there is a special something that makes a Jackson Pollock worth millions while the drips from my paint won’t make me a dime.
The good thing is your thinking this through too hard. Think of the SCiO as an AI (artificial intelligence) microscope. To make good use you first need to “teach” the computer. So you show it (the SCiO) the color blue (scan) and tell it ‘this is blue’. You proceed to show and tell it what its looking at for all the 65 million colors. After ‘teaching’ it the colors, then you can “TEST MODEL” and point the SCiO at something and it can tell you what color it is.
This seems absurdly easy, it is, for you, not a brainless stupid machine. But the machine has better eye sight, it can see colors like we do, but it can also see the vibrations of molecules. So when we ‘teach it’, it can not only see color, but which bonds between molecules are vibrating. All this information makes us able to see the art, not just the picture.
Hope that helps, sometimes there is a language berrior.
The lab is required, but in the lab is an option to export the data to a spreadsheet. This data can then be analyzed using what ever you want to use.
As far as retrieving data, sending to the cloud, processing the new results, potentially sending to the cloud for further processing, then getting the result back to send to the user, good question?
Hagai,
I understand completely that this device is not intended for resolution under 1%. BUT .. The current home pesticide test is real simple, but expensive. Here is a link
Now the basic chemistry is adding a solution to the substance and checking a color.. But your not really checking a color, your looking to see if there is a chemical reaction that changes color with concentrations. Now it takes (roughly depending on the test) 5ML of “stuff” and a few ML of “these stuff”, there is a better way.
If instead of scanning your veggies directly, put .005 letter’s on a test strip and wipe the veggie and then scan the strip…. Strips like this should be able to be made for fractions of a penny. You only need enough “Stuff” to get to 1% to have the SCiO get to fractions of fractions with a little help…
Am I on to something here ??
I decided to ask it in another different way:
I have a model that quantifies the amount of salt in solution that works.
I also have a model that quantifies the amount of sugar in solution.
I have noticed the sugar model doesn’t work, but the Salt model works great.. Most of the time. Every once in a while I get a result that is just stupid. Once in a while it will say something like the solution contains %6000 salt. Obviously wrong…
The thing is, when the salt reading is obviously wrong, the sugar reading is spot on…
Only one reading is correct, either the sugar or the salt….
I need a way to show one model or the other but not both…
Lets try the question again.
I have created two models. The first model will produce results like the sample contains %6043 . But only sometimes. The rest of the time it is pretty close.
The second model quantifies another way but..
If the first model shows %6043 than the second model is actually measuring substance B, not substance A.
So, most of the time I will be measuring substance A. When it goes WAY out of whack, I know I found substance B, not A. The second model should be used for the quantity of B, Otherwise the model results should be used for substance A.
The substance has both A and B molecules in it, but it will either be predominately A or mostly B.
If the substance is B, it hides the amount of A (and I get out of wack numbers for A) but substance A does not hide substance B.
My followup question is …
What are the chances of incerasing the upper range into the first overtone, or at least 1800 nm…?
I am interested in CH3 which, if my self taught information is correct, would respond best in the following ranges… In nm’s
700-750
875-900
1330-1400
1650-1725
Finally, the ability to look at only the overtones ranges would be VERY helpful..
I have been thinking about the data presented above. These are the basic ideas I think work somehow.
First.. The ripple for the solutions may be from the cup, not material interaction with water.
From the first graph we can see how much sugar bounces around compared to the salt, I think thats mostly due to O-H bonds in the chemical structures. Then both samples were dissolved in water. I see the second graph like the pure water (or cup bottom?) drags the spectrums of the sugar/salt toward the water spectrum. It looks to me like the salt solution follows the pure water spectrum much more than the sugar solution. I don’t have the data or mathematical confidence to see if we were to take the water/salt solution spectrum and subtract the water spectrum we would come up with the salt only spectrum. Don’t know, but intuitively it looks like that statement is true. Looking at the sugar/water solution spectrum compared to the sugar only, doesn’t feel as convincing but it still looks right to me.
I’m coming out with the idea that it will be possible to subtract one substance from another in some circumstances.
Not sure if I’m right, but thats what it looks like to me.
OOPS…
The molecular difference wasn’t quite right when I explained it..
Sample A was correct with the oxygen linking the H3C and CH3..
Sample B is where I screwed up. The addition of the hydrogen atom breaks the H3C – CH3 chain. The addition makes the OH hang off the CH3 side of the chain.
