SCIO handheld molecular scanner is a scam?

[CheCheChe]

 

A real chemist explains why he thinks that SCIO is bs. It was featured in a Techquickie episode.

His video is quite long, so I suggest watching it on x1.5 speed and skip as much as you can (he tends to repeat himself).

 

 

[Teddy07]

wow

I am subscribed to thunderf00t. I didn´t notice he had a new video out. Thanks mate!

[kasugatei]

I watched that video yesterday and he nicely explained why it is a BS. He basically bought a $60k (used for $6k) spectrometer machine which uses the same technology as the "molecular scanner" and through the experiment he showed that even precision lab equipment can't scan eg. orange. He might be smuggish person, but in most of the cases he is right.

 

Also, my way of thinking is if something on the promo video looks way too good to be true, it is 99.9% fake.

[peredv]

This one could probably have been researched a whole lot better..

 

1:35 "Higher frequency can penetrate further into objects than lower energy far infrared or radiowaves"

 

Soo you're saying that visible light - which is even higher frequency than infrared -  goes through walls but wi-fi - which is radiowaves - stops at the skin of an apple? That doesn't seem like the reality I live in 

[Erkel]

Another LTT video to add to the wall of shame.  Can we please get away from these recite a marketing script videos that LTT does from time to time.

[HPCmonkey]

9 hours ago, peredv said:

This one could probably have been researched a whole lot better..

 

1:35 "Higher frequency can penetrate further into objects than lower energy far infrared or radiowaves"

 

Soo you're saying that visible light - which is even higher frequency than infrared -  goes through walls but wi-fi - which is radiowaves - stops at the skin of an apple? That doesn't seem like the reality I live in 

Wifi basically relies on bouncing around walls and through windows or doorways more than it does penetrating walls and floors.

It can penetrate some, but you can actually watch your signal strength improve just by opening your door into the doorway.

[kasugatei]

5 hours ago, HPCmonkey said:

Wifi basically relies on bouncing around walls and through windows or doorways more than it does penetrating walls and floors.

It can penetrate some, but you can actually watch your signal strength improve just by opening your door into the doorway.

And just to add, if you have concrete wall with armatures (iron) between AP and end device you can observe a massive signal degradation

[Neokolzia]

A little constructive criticism goes a long way, but when plugging click-bait snakeoil non-sense.

 

Why would a journalist/creator bother putting any criticism right?  

Sensationalization is what makes $$

[BcrdRqs]

Having some experience with IR spectroscopy and other lab equipment at university and in the industry, the BS of those scanners is pretty obvious. 

 

Personally, I would be glad to see some kind of correction or at least acknowledgement of the likeliness of a scam at the Techquicky video. As it stands people might see the video and believe it to be a real working thing and are more likely to get ripped off. Especially since the LTT brand has a huge reach and influence.

 

On 8/6/2018 at 12:57 PM, Erkel said:

Can we please get away from these recite a marketing script videos that LTT does from time to time.

This should really be a topic of discussion especially for Techquicky. The person who has written the script should have had enough knowledge of the topic to at least smell that something is fishy, or otherwise might not have been suitable to create educational (in a wider sense) content for this specific topic. At the same time I totally understand that LTT is more "Tech" regarding computer hardware then scientific equipment. It is just kinda frustrating to see more and more YouTube videos and news articles reporting about science by repeating some mumbo jumbo they have read online or provided by some marketing department without questioning it because they did not really understand the topic.

 

A final footnote regarding Thunderf00t. I really love and hate his videos at the same time. He presents the scientific facts for many scams and other dubious claims in an easy and understandable way be using rough estimates (see Fermi estimation) and short mini experiments. But he tends to repeat himself and his arguments waaay to often as well as showing the same graphs and animations not once or twice but more like 20 times.

[Jose Camoes Silva]

_{TF is hit-and-miss with a miss ratio well above 80% (more if you look into the details of the videos where he isn't completely wrong), but this time he's probably right (based on the product and my understanding of the science involved; I'm not watching a 50-min TF video). Perhaps a quick rejoinder to that Techquickie would be a good thing.}

 

_{(I'm sure TF relished the opportunity to get back at Linus after being called on his arrogance/ignorance on the hyperloop livestream.)}

[CheCheChe]

On 8/10/2018 at 5:48 AM, Jose Camoes Silva said:

_{after being called on his arrogance/ignorance on the hyperloop livestream}

Can you give a link or video title? I want to see this.

[Jose Camoes Silva]

On 8/18/2018 at 4:31 AM, CheCheChe said:

Can you give a link or video title? I want to see this.

It's one of the WANs, far back, when they pointed out that TF was acting as if no one at any of the Hyperloop companies had ever thought of basic issues. I think there are posts about it here on the forum.

[Lunithy]

LOL Linus did you do some research before hand .... lol

 

[lewdicrous]

They already talked about it on a previous WAN show episode.

[Erkel]

Linus gets owned for his BS again lol.

 

14:25 is the best time stamp to start at.

 

Have some ball dude,  You are loosing what little credibility you have left.

 

1 hour ago, lewdicrous said:

They already talked about it on a previous WAN show episode.

This is a follow up video, that covers their response on the wan show.

[lewdicrous]

2 minutes ago, Erkel said:

This is a follow up video, that covers their response on the wan show.

Somehow I didn't see the big ass blue "response" in the thumbnail, my bad

[Spotty]

Wow that was a horrible video to watch.
For those interested, it's between 14min - 21min that he bitches about LTT. Though I wouldn't recommend giving the guy any more views.

Basically he just replays the same clips from the tech quickie again, and again, and again, then cutting back to WAN show footage, then back to the same tech quickie bit again, then back to WAN again, then adds a comment like "Oh really", then back to TQ again, then back to WAN show, then back to TQ, then back to WAN, showing the same clips again and again trying for some sort of dramatic effect, but it's just really stupid and annoying.

 

[Sauron]

So, I didn't know about this... I watched the videos in question (the original techquickie, the wan show, and the part of the last TF video that concerned them) and here are my thoughts:

 

1) The tq video is from a year ago. That doesn't fix its flaws, but it adds context to the situation.

2) The idea that lmg took money from the company to make that video is ludicrous, regardless of whether or not the video kind of looks like an ad - that's just the techquickie format, every video is like this and I strongly doubt they take money from every company they mention.

3) TF did not originally say they were paid by the company, however he did say they were promoting it - not quite the same thing, sure, but I can see how Linus might misinterpret it.

4) As mentioned, the video is from a year ago and, because of the nature of a video covering a supposedly new technology which is only detailed on a crowdfunding page, it's no wonder that most of what they say comes from that company's description of the product.

 

So overall, I think TF's attack is unwarranted. Yes, the video is definitely not a documentary and more in depth research for techquickie videos couldn't hurt, but DEMANDING a full debunking of a company's claims before publishing a video covering the basics of what they claim seems a little escessive.

 

His second response is also terribly structured and really fails at making any point whatsoever. He repeats the same things over and over again, fixating on minutiae and warping what Linus said. He harps on Linus for mistaking "promotion" with "paid promotion" and then proceeds to take the star trek comparison, which was only meant as an introduction, in an extremely literal sense. As usual, TF proves completely incapable of making a coherent argument, which is a shame because he obviously knows what he's talking about when it comes to physics. Much of his video also uses the absence of further development in the past year as evidence that the company is phony - which LMG could not possibly have known a year ago.

 

So, instead of taking what he says at face value and making snarky posts, I suggest you look at his videos a little more critically next time - isn't that what TF likes, critical thinking...?  @Lunithy

 

@Spotty from what I've seen, this is a consistent pattern with him - he's so convinced of his intellectual superiority that he forgets to actually state his point in a convincing fashion. That makes no difference when he mentions scientific facts of course, but when it comes to everything else... ughh...

[Amazonsucks]

22 minutes ago, Sauron said:

So, I didn't know about this... I watched the videos in question (the original techquickie, the wan show, and the part of the last TF video that concerned them) and here are my thoughts:

 

1) The tq video is from a year ago. That doesn't fix its flaws, but it adds context to the situation.

2) The idea that lmg took money from the company to make that video is ludicrous, regardless of whether or not the video kind of looks like an ad - that's just the techquickie format, every video is like this and I strongly doubt they take money from every company they mention.

3) TF did not originally say they were paid by the company, however he did say they were promoting it - not quite the same thing, sure, but I can see how Linus might misinterpret it.

4) As mentioned, the video is from a year ago and, because of the nature of a video covering a supposedly new technology which is only detailed on a crowdfunding page, it's no wonder that most of what they say comes from that company's description of the product.

 

So overall, I think TF's attack is unwarranted. Yes, the video is definitely not a documentary and more in depth research for techquickie videos couldn't hurt, but DEMANDING a full debunking of a company's claims before publishing a video covering the basics of what they claim seems a little escessive.

 

His second response is also terribly structured and really fails at making any point whatsoever. He repeats the same things over and over again, fixating on minutiae and warping what Linus said. He harps on Linus for mistaking "promotion" with "paid promotion" and then proceeds to take the star trek comparison, which was only meant as an introduction, in an extremely literal sense. As usual, TF proves completely incapable of making a coherent argument, which is a shame because he obviously knows what he's talking about when it comes to physics. Much of his video also uses the absence of further development in the past year as evidence that the company is phony - which LMG could not possibly have known a year ago.

 

So, instead of taking what he says at face value and making snarky posts, I suggest you look at his videos a little more critically next time - isn't that what TF likes, critical thinking...?  @Lunithy

 

@Spotty from what I've seen, this is a consistent pattern with him - he's so convinced of his intellectual superiority that he forgets to actually state his point in a convincing fashion. That makes no difference when he mentions scientific facts of course, but when it comes to everything else... ughh...

Even someone with high school physics or chemsitry knowledge should have known that flashlight thing pretending to be a Tricorder is bullshit. 

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Even someone with high school physics or chemsitry knowledge should have known that flashlight thing pretending to be a Tricorder is bullshit. 

Yeah, keep insisting on the tricorder thing. Of course it couldn't be exactly like a tricorder, the problem is whether or not what they actually claim it does is possible or not - and no, you can't know that with high school chemistry. There are people who get out of high school without knowing what atomic orbitals are because they were taught an atom looks like this

Spoiler

 

So stop acting like this is trivial and only an idiot could be fooled by those claims. It took a YEAR for this to come to TF's attention and I can't find any prior debunking done by anyone - if it were so obvious you'd think there would have been a lot more, a lot sooner.

 

Or maybe everyone's just an idiot except for TF and his miraculous audience of prodigies. You tell me what's more likely.

[Amazonsucks]

10 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Yeah, keep insisting on the tricorder thing. Of course it couldn't be exactly like a tricorder, the problem is whether or not what they actually claim it does is possible or not - and no, you can't know that with high school chemistry. There are people who get out of high school without knowing what atomic orbitals are because they were taught an atom looks like this

  Hide contents

 

So stop acting like this is trivial and only an idiot could be fooled by those claims. It took a YEAR for this to come to TF's attention and I can't find any prior debunking done by anyone - if it were so obvious you'd think there would have been a lot more, a lot sooner.

 

Or maybe everyone's just an idiot except for TF and his miraculous audience of prodigies. You tell me what's more likely.

Maybe the target audience of the video doesnt include people who know chemistry or physics? I had never seen that video on what is obviously snake oil in my feed. 

 

I think thats the most likely scenario tbh. I could have told you its obviously fake in less than a minute. For one thing, even if you believe that it can scan the composition of the surface of an object, why would anyone believe it could tell you its internal composition using a dim LED? That doesnt take a rocket scientist to see through.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Maybe the target audience of the video doesnt include people who know chemistry or physics?

Techquickie has 2.3 million subscribers. Now say that again and consider how likely it is that, out of 2.3 million people who are interested in consumer tech, nobody has a moderate knowledge of chemistry or physics. "What is a handheld molecular scanner?" would probably at least catch my attention even if I had a ph.d. in physics, perhaps even more so.

7 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

I could have told you its obviously fake in less than a minute.

Sure thing, I bet having seen the debunking video first didn't help you one bit. I wish I were as smart as you.

8 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

For one thing, even if you believe that it can scan the composition of the surface of an object, why would anyone believe it could tell you its internal composition using a dim visible light? That doesnt take a rocket scientist to see through.

Do you (or rather, did you before seeing TF's video) have such a perfect understanding of light and molecules that you'd have been absolutely, 100%, without a shadow of a doubt sure that it could never work? You can see a flashlight through your HAND, it's not like visible light can't penetrate organic matter to any degree... if were the only problem with it, you'd already be wrong. If you ALSO know that to distinguish molecules you need infrared, then sure, you may have had more reasons to be suspicious - but even TF admitted that it's unreasonable to expect someone who isn't a specialist to know that.

 

You treat science as if it were self evident, as if you could just "tell" if something was reasonable or not just by looking at it - it's no different from someone saying that the Earth is flat because you can "tell" that the ground is flat. There are things you don't know, it takes quite a bit of arrogance to believe you have the full picture on something just because it doesn't seem quite right on a first glance. And I'm sure this is how you normally approach things - in this case, you know it's wrong and therefore it's easy to claim you'd have known all along...

[Amazonsucks]

48 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Techquickie has 2.3 million subscribers. Now say that again and consider how likely it is that, out of 2.3 million people who are interested in consumer tech, nobody has a moderate knowledge of chemistry or physics. "What is a handheld molecular scanner?" would probably at least catch my attention even if I had a ph.d. in physics, perhaps even more so.

Sure thing, I bet having seen the debunking video first didn't help you one bit. I wish I were as smart as you.

Do you (or rather, did you before seeing TF's video) have such a perfect understanding of light and molecules that you'd have been absolutely, 100%, without a shadow of a doubt sure that it could never work? You can see a flashlight through your HAND, it's not like visible light can't penetrate organic matter to any degree... if were the only problem with it, you'd already be wrong. If you ALSO know that to distinguish molecules you need infrared, then sure, you may have had more reasons to be suspicious - but even TF admitted that it's unreasonable to expect someone who isn't a specialist to know that.

 

You treat science as if it were self evident, as if you could just "tell" if something was reasonable or not just by looking at it - it's no different from someone saying that the Earth is flat because you can "tell" that the ground is flat. There are things you don't know, it takes quite a bit of arrogance to believe you have the full picture on something just because it doesn't seem quite right on a first glance. And I'm sure this is how you normally approach things - in this case, you know it's wrong and therefore it's easy to claim you'd have known all along...

Well having studied chemistry, physics, engineering with a focus on advanced materials and metallurgy, semiconductor architecture and materials... yes i did know instantly that it was BS without watching Thunderfoots video...

 

I love how youre now equating flat earthers with someone who knows physics and chem enough to call BS on snake oil tech without someone else needing to debunk it first.

 

Oh no, clearly the video that i didnt even watch 1/4 of taught me that a tiny hand held cheapo fake flashlight thing isnt actually more capable than thousands of dollars worth of precision lab equipment. Yes i needed a video to make that clear to me. 

[Sauron]

55 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Well having studied chemistry, physics, engineering with a focus on advanced materials and metallurgy, semiconductor architecture and materials... yes i did know instantly that it was BS without watching Thunderfoots video...

 

I love how youre now equating flat earthers with someone who knows physics and chem enough to call BS on snake oil tech without someone else needing to debunk it first.

If you studied physics and chemistry in university then your point is completely moot. You claimed anyone would have seen it, if your evidence for that is that YOU'D have seen it as someone with a freaking degree in that sort of thing then I don't think there's anything to add...

 

In that case then sure, your knowledge was probably enough to tell it was nonsense - I assumed, based on what you said, that you didn't, otherwise your point wouldn't have made any sense (which turned out to be the case, my bad I guess).

1 hour ago, Amazonsucks said:

Oh no, clearly the video that i didnt even watch 1/4 of taught me that a tiny hand held cheapo fake flashlight thing isnt actually more capable than thousands of dollars worth of precision lab equipment. Yes i needed a video to make that clear to me. 

When did the target of the argument shift from the general population to me in particular? I'm an engineer too, I know why this doesn't work (though personally, considering it's not my field of specialization, I would at least have considered the idea that they knew something I don't) and I hadn't seen that techquickie video before - but that is completely irrelevant. YOUR claim was this:

2 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

Even someone with high school physics or chemsitry knowledge should have known that flashlight thing pretending to be a Tricorder is bullshit. 

Which is bullshit. You don't get to adjust your argument after the fact just because I called you out on it. You have the same problem as TF himself - you can't see things from the point of view of someone who didn't make a career out of science and in your haste to ridicule them you forget what your point was in the first place.

[seon123]

1 hour ago, TimsTips said:

I think "Thunderf00t" just wanted clicks from a larger tech channel, and he got them. Screw that guy.

Yeah, how dare anyone call Techquickie out on one of the many many things they got wrong.