Screen Signals creator assessment

Is Tom Stanton appropriate for kids?

@tomstantonengineering · A parent-focused assessment based on a sample of recent and popular public long-form videos, not a review of every upload.

6 videos analyzed Last analyzed August 17, 2026View channel on YouTube
Scores by age

Age-specific assessment

Choose an age range.

ScreenSignals.ai
94of 100

Tom Stanton

For ages 8–10

Few concerns found

Nothing concerning came up repeatedly in the videos we reviewed. Educational or thought-provoking material appeared more than once.

High confidence based on 6 videos reviewed
LanguageFew concerns100
Violence & intensityFew concerns100
Sexual or suggestive contentFew concerns100
Substances & risky behaviorFew concerns100
Harassment & role modelingFew concerns100
Fear & disturbing themesFew concerns97
Mature & sensitive topicsFew concerns100
Commercial pressureFew concerns90
Positive things we found
  • Educational or thought-provoking material appeared more than once.
  • Perseverance, resilience, or healthy challenge appeared more than once.
  • Creativity, imagination, or constructive problem-solving appeared more than once.
Things a parent may want to know
  • Mentions of product sponsorship and Patreon support may imply commercial pressure
  • Some technical jargon may be challenging for very young children
  • The video includes the use of heavy weights and high-speed projectiles which could be dangerous if replicated without proper safety measures.
  • Some technical terms and concepts may be complex for younger children to fully understand.
  • The project involves potentially hazardous materials and machinery that require adult supervision.
Videos reviewed

A quick look at the videos

See the individual videos that shaped this assessment and the main points an adult parent may want to know.

recent · standard video94/100

Supersonic Trebuchet

Score for ages 8–10 · Few concerns
  • The video includes the use of heavy weights and high-speed projectiles which could be dangerous if replicated without proper safety measures.
  • Some technical terms and concepts may be complex for younger children to fully understand.
  • The project involves potentially hazardous materials and machinery that require adult supervision.
recent · standard video93/100

Super Capacitor Wind-Up Plane

Score for ages 8–10 · Few concerns
  • Some technical jargon may require adult explanation for younger viewers.
  • Mentions of electronic components and charging require supervision if replicated.
  • Educational content on physics, engineering, and aerodynamics.
recent · standard video94/100

Building a Mechanical Battery

Score for ages 8–10 · Few concerns
  • Clear explanation of electromagnetic induction and energy conversion.
  • Step-by-step demonstration of building a mechanical generator.
  • Shows practical applications by powering LEDs, a fan, and other devices.
popular · standard video94/100

Can Flywheel technology make cycling easier?

Score for ages 8–10 · Few concerns
  • Some mechanical terms and concepts may be complex for younger children without guidance.
  • Brief mention of a tire weight coming off and hitting the creator's leg, described as 'a bit scary', but no injury details.
  • Use of tools and machinery is shown but without safety warnings, which might require adult supervision if replicated.
popular · standard video97/100

Flywheel Battery

Score for ages 8–10 · Few concerns
  • Clear explanation of magnetic levitation and flywheel physics
  • Demonstrates practical application by generating electricity and powering LEDs and motors
  • Encourages interest in STEM through hands-on project
popular · standard video98/100

Pneumatic Plane

Score for ages 8–10 · Few concerns
  • Mentions of product sponsorship and Patreon support may imply commercial pressure
  • Some technical jargon may be challenging for very young children
  • Educational content about engineering and model aircraft design
Read this score correctly

A channel assessment is a starting point, not a guarantee.

The assessment evaluates observable patterns in the sampled videos. It does not cover private or deleted videos, comments, recommendations, livestream behavior, visual-only moments that cannot be reliably identified, or every upload.

Creator-controlled source material is treated only as evidence and cannot instruct or override the analysis. The score reflects the evidence collected on the displayed analysis date and does not update automatically.

See the complete sampling and scoring method