Graywolf
- 1,597
- 263
I may have already, but will you refresh my memory on the URL?
Did you show the whole process, or was that the video of you doing recovery?
I may have already, but will you refresh my memory on the URL?
Did you show the whole process, or was that the video of you doing recovery?
Graywolf
- 1,597
- 263
Thanks for that insight bro! In my simple mindedness, I admire simple!
Do you have a U-Tube of your loading and charging process, to go along with the collection video and might I ask what pressure you plan to operate at?
Do I infer that you will be passing sub critical liquid CO2 through the material from a pair of Dewars?
If above Dewar head pressure, how are you raising the pressure and circulating the CO2?
How many column volumes of sub critical CO2 do you estimate that it takes at that temperature and pressure, to extract the yield you have targeted?
Do you have a U-Tube of your loading and charging process, to go along with the collection video and might I ask what pressure you plan to operate at?
Do I infer that you will be passing sub critical liquid CO2 through the material from a pair of Dewars?
If above Dewar head pressure, how are you raising the pressure and circulating the CO2?
How many column volumes of sub critical CO2 do you estimate that it takes at that temperature and pressure, to extract the yield you have targeted?
Graywolf
- 1,597
- 263
After a professional career developing ways to do things, that those around me said couldn't be done, may I share a few thoughts that helped me to relax and keep in perspective?
The world is full of people who are damn sure of things that ain't so. Sometimes that has been me.
The way to shut up a naysayer, is to just do what I say I'm going to.
If it is stupid and works, it isn't stupid.
The fastest way for others to forget about a mistake, is fix it.
The fastest way for others to forget about a win, is to polarize the subject ahead of time and engage their egos.
It is easier to sell a new concept on the merits of what it does well, than on what its competitors don't do well.
The intellectual discussion is over, when the first person makes negative interpersonal comments.
The world is full of people who are damn sure of things that ain't so. Sometimes that has been me.
The way to shut up a naysayer, is to just do what I say I'm going to.
If it is stupid and works, it isn't stupid.
The fastest way for others to forget about a mistake, is fix it.
The fastest way for others to forget about a win, is to polarize the subject ahead of time and engage their egos.
It is easier to sell a new concept on the merits of what it does well, than on what its competitors don't do well.
The intellectual discussion is over, when the first person makes negative interpersonal comments.
Graywolf
- 1,597
- 263
At 65 bar, the specific gravity of CO2 at 1.014 is pretty close to that of water, so it wouldn't take much of a plug to slow it down or stop it.
Besides the most obvious answer of a looser pack and a shorter column, I just had a brain fart to throw into the ferris wheel mix. Suppose you had two columns mounted side beside, both the same length, but their centers offset an equal amount from the wheels axis of rotation 180 degrees. If you spun the wheel, instead of simply turning it 180 degrees, the centrifugal force might fling the liquid through the column and into the opposite tank.
The columns offset 180 degrees will counter balance each other, and for the next cycle, they both shift an equal amount from the central axis of rotation in the opposite directions, so as to again counterbalance each other. "Stand back folks, don't try this in your kitchen." Ahwoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!1
Actually, I'm more interested in seeing where you take the process, than building double barreled rotating columns, given the weights and lack of simplicity, so ah'm watching with baity breath! Please do carry on and show us your stuff!
squiggly
- 3,277
- 263
Okay so you said this :
Where do you get your information from? I can understand your theories, but contrary to what makes sense in both theory and construction or engineering, but supercritical is more solvent power than we need. Yes it dissolves more cannabinoids, but not so as it adds more unwanted things in the extract. So you end up w a complex botanical drug source which is difficult to impossable to get out. Sub you are left w a simple bds that's easy to clean up w one step winterization. Then stablize and purify product and your done. High percentage of cannabinoids w less yield. Vs diluted version bulked up getting the solvents money worth.
I really don't have the time to reply to this same exact question again broseph.
The fact, should you choose to accept it or not, is that supercritical extraction is more selective.
Always has been, its always going to be, it in fact was only created for that purpose. Its the only reason it exists as a technology.
Here's an analogy:
I say: A rifle shoots farther than a pistol.
You say: No it doesn't.
I say: Seriously, yes it does. That's what its for.
You'd think by the above the person didn't know what the word "farther" meant. And I believe that may be going on here--except regarding the word selectivity.
I go on to explain some of the workings behind it about which I have a good amount of understanding. Referencing clear scientific reasons throughout any and all posts in which I've discussed such things. Sometimes repeating myself 4 or 5 times over a series of posts--as I won't do again here or anywhere on this board. I've done it already, why would I do it again?
You say: But where is your information coming from.
Now I say:
It's coming from essentially the complete breadth of scientific knowledge which we, as a species, currently have in this area. I'm sad to say but a world of geniuses are not wrong while you stand correct above them.
It is PERFECTLY REASONABLE to say that extracting bud with a subcritical method is miles and away BETTER than doing it with supercritical.
However
It is NOT reasonable to say that subcritical extractions are more selective.
I think the problem we're having here is that it's taken me 6 years of school and 30 hours of reading/researching this topic to wrap my head around it. I can't do that for you in an internet conversation.
The above is just simply the way it is. You can believe it or not dude, my only interest in replying to you about this specific thing is to make sure that people who read here will be well-informed despite your incorrect understanding of this science.
Again I say it is reasonable to say subcritical is better. It's cheaper, easier, and probably still very clean and nice to smoke--perhaps even better than BHO QWISO or even an acid-base extraction of THC-A.
It may even be that in supercritical you are getting TOO selective if you're pulling out only cannabinoids. Terpenes are important to.
This list of reasons why its better goes on and on and on. I frankly thank you for doing the work you are doing in trying to perfect a subcritical extraction process. I commend you and think that what you're doing IS ABSOLUTELY going to be the way forward if the results you are getting stand up to repetition by others (and I actually believe that they will).
You see, I'm not a nay sayer about subcritical extraction dude. I think its probably very stupid and inefficient and probably prohibitively hard to get a good product out of supercritical. You'd really have to do a lot of science FIRST to learn about the strain to figure out how to carry out the extraction. Again, believe it or not--but that is the case.
Subcritical gets over all those problems and more--BUT IT IS NOT NOR WILL IT EVER BE IN YOUR WILDEST DREAMS MORE SELECTIVE.
Selective means a thing in chemistry.
That thing is a thing which supercritical extraction has more of (selectivity) than subcritical extraction.
Saying otherwise hurts my face and looks to me the same as 1+1 = 25 must look to a mathematician. It's just wrong. Whatever you are meaning to say, if correct, you are not saying correctly--words have meaning. And the meaning of this one is clear as it regards both of these processes. Subcritical less selective, supercritical more selective.
If you are just going supercritical at any old value of pressure, temp, density--then yes the subcritical could end up being more selective--as its solvating properties will only change in a linear fashion.
You have made mention that supercritical has more solvent power. This statement represents a slight misunderstanding of the chemistry involved and is MORE than likely what is behind your misunderstanding of this process. Solvent power doesn't simply increase in the supercritical phase linearly as it does in subcritical--it completely changes its face and composition. Solvent power in the supercritical phase IS NOT described by the same equation as it is in the subcritical phase. Solvating properties vary in a distinctly non-linear way in the supercritical phase and study of a target molecules properties can lead to it being very easy to isolate. That's what this process is for. There are a huge array of different values in the supercritical phase for which the solvating properties of the CO2 are very different--and we can use this to our advantage if we know what those properties are and how different functional groups and inductive forces in a molecule will lend themselves to being dissolved into a solvent with such properties.
You can't do that in subcritical solvation--you are increasing or decreasing values linearly in the liquid phase below supercritical levels and this will lead to a solvation "gradient" of molecules being established with respect given to those properties--rather than in some cases being able to target one molecule among many as you can in supercritical. For some chemicals subcritical is absolutely better--for others (especially persnickety ones) supercritical is the way to go.
So to wrap this up and never speak of it again:
Subcritical is probably better for a vast array of reasons for cannabis extraction and likely represents the best way to move forward in the cannabis processing industry. Keep up the good work xtractr.
Supercritical is vastly more selective as it regards the chemistry, about this there is no question.
Where do you get your information from? I can understand your theories, but contrary to what makes sense in both theory and construction or engineering, but supercritical is more solvent power than we need. Yes it dissolves more cannabinoids, but not so as it adds more unwanted things in the extract. So you end up w a complex botanical drug source which is difficult to impossable to get out. Sub you are left w a simple bds that's easy to clean up w one step winterization. Then stablize and purify product and your done. High percentage of cannabinoids w less yield. Vs diluted version bulked up getting the solvents money worth.
I really don't have the time to reply to this same exact question again broseph.
The fact, should you choose to accept it or not, is that supercritical extraction is more selective.
Always has been, its always going to be, it in fact was only created for that purpose. Its the only reason it exists as a technology.
Here's an analogy:
I say: A rifle shoots farther than a pistol.
You say: No it doesn't.
I say: Seriously, yes it does. That's what its for.
You'd think by the above the person didn't know what the word "farther" meant. And I believe that may be going on here--except regarding the word selectivity.
I go on to explain some of the workings behind it about which I have a good amount of understanding. Referencing clear scientific reasons throughout any and all posts in which I've discussed such things. Sometimes repeating myself 4 or 5 times over a series of posts--as I won't do again here or anywhere on this board. I've done it already, why would I do it again?
You say: But where is your information coming from.
Now I say:
It's coming from essentially the complete breadth of scientific knowledge which we, as a species, currently have in this area. I'm sad to say but a world of geniuses are not wrong while you stand correct above them.
It is PERFECTLY REASONABLE to say that extracting bud with a subcritical method is miles and away BETTER than doing it with supercritical.
However
It is NOT reasonable to say that subcritical extractions are more selective.
I think the problem we're having here is that it's taken me 6 years of school and 30 hours of reading/researching this topic to wrap my head around it. I can't do that for you in an internet conversation.
The above is just simply the way it is. You can believe it or not dude, my only interest in replying to you about this specific thing is to make sure that people who read here will be well-informed despite your incorrect understanding of this science.
Again I say it is reasonable to say subcritical is better. It's cheaper, easier, and probably still very clean and nice to smoke--perhaps even better than BHO QWISO or even an acid-base extraction of THC-A.
It may even be that in supercritical you are getting TOO selective if you're pulling out only cannabinoids. Terpenes are important to.
This list of reasons why its better goes on and on and on. I frankly thank you for doing the work you are doing in trying to perfect a subcritical extraction process. I commend you and think that what you're doing IS ABSOLUTELY going to be the way forward if the results you are getting stand up to repetition by others (and I actually believe that they will).
You see, I'm not a nay sayer about subcritical extraction dude. I think its probably very stupid and inefficient and probably prohibitively hard to get a good product out of supercritical. You'd really have to do a lot of science FIRST to learn about the strain to figure out how to carry out the extraction. Again, believe it or not--but that is the case.
Subcritical gets over all those problems and more--BUT IT IS NOT NOR WILL IT EVER BE IN YOUR WILDEST DREAMS MORE SELECTIVE.
Selective means a thing in chemistry.
That thing is a thing which supercritical extraction has more of (selectivity) than subcritical extraction.
Saying otherwise hurts my face and looks to me the same as 1+1 = 25 must look to a mathematician. It's just wrong. Whatever you are meaning to say, if correct, you are not saying correctly--words have meaning. And the meaning of this one is clear as it regards both of these processes. Subcritical less selective, supercritical more selective.
If you are just going supercritical at any old value of pressure, temp, density--then yes the subcritical could end up being more selective--as its solvating properties will only change in a linear fashion.
You have made mention that supercritical has more solvent power. This statement represents a slight misunderstanding of the chemistry involved and is MORE than likely what is behind your misunderstanding of this process. Solvent power doesn't simply increase in the supercritical phase linearly as it does in subcritical--it completely changes its face and composition. Solvent power in the supercritical phase IS NOT described by the same equation as it is in the subcritical phase. Solvating properties vary in a distinctly non-linear way in the supercritical phase and study of a target molecules properties can lead to it being very easy to isolate. That's what this process is for. There are a huge array of different values in the supercritical phase for which the solvating properties of the CO2 are very different--and we can use this to our advantage if we know what those properties are and how different functional groups and inductive forces in a molecule will lend themselves to being dissolved into a solvent with such properties.
You can't do that in subcritical solvation--you are increasing or decreasing values linearly in the liquid phase below supercritical levels and this will lead to a solvation "gradient" of molecules being established with respect given to those properties--rather than in some cases being able to target one molecule among many as you can in supercritical. For some chemicals subcritical is absolutely better--for others (especially persnickety ones) supercritical is the way to go.
So to wrap this up and never speak of it again:
Subcritical is probably better for a vast array of reasons for cannabis extraction and likely represents the best way to move forward in the cannabis processing industry. Keep up the good work xtractr.
Supercritical is vastly more selective as it regards the chemistry, about this there is no question.
squiggly
- 3,277
- 263
The idea that subcritical works well, or even is the best in its class for cannabis extraction in no way disproves that supercritical is more selective a process scientifically speaking.
The problem is probably as I've said before that I'm using vocabulary which refers to concepts which are infinitely more complicated than they sound at first--like selectivity.
The fact is when you do science you agree upon conventions by which things should be explained. By these conventions that scientists the world over have agreed upon--supercritical extraction is a more selective process. That doesn't mean ANYTHING more than what it means, that by science's definition of selectivity supercritical wins out.
I don't NEED to step up to a vessel to prove that--it's been proven time and again and repeated ad nauseum by sceintists already. In perfectly public and available journals. Most of what was published probably came out before the first commercial machine was even produced.
Why would I step up to repeat an experiment that doesn't need repeated? Part of the way science works is that we all don't have to do EVERY experiment in order to gain the knowledge from it--the experiment need only be repeated and verified by more than a single person.
What I really don't understand about this argument xtractr is that it seems you just can't give up on this--even though I repeatedly concede that subcritical is infinitely better a process for the purposes anyone one this board would be interested in.
Essentially what you're saying is that something cold is hot. You have flipped the definitions. It doesn't mean I'm saying everything you know or have learned is wrong--it just means that you are not correct about this aspect.
I would gladly write you a research paper here full of citations and proof of my claim--but part of me knows you would not accept that and would simply deride it as an "incorrect theory".
I want to make it clear though, NOTHING I have said is based on theory--EVERY WORD is based on data and results which have been published.
Here's whats important dude--for subcritical to make sense here it does not need to be THE MOST SELECTIVE THING. It only needs to be sufficiently selective and cheap in order to blow away the rest of the competition. This by default completely throws supercritical out of the argument.
Here's the thing dude. I don't come here and tell you that the extractor you built is shit--or to presume to explain to you how it works, or which parts could stand improvement. That is for you to do, and I've already thanked you for that as I REALLY DO BELIEVE that you are perhaps one of the first people who will bring the cleanliness and cost effectiveness of a method like this to market. You seem more than capable of doing it, and dedicated to the task. I, again, commend you for that.
At the same time I don't expect you to come here and argue at end for weeks about the SAME thing over and over again. This is something about which it is VERY CLEAR that I know more than you. Instead of disagreeing with me with NO PROOF OR SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF YOUR OWN TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIM, you might consider working with me or probing my knowledge to better attack the problem you want to solve.
Lord knows if I wanted to know how to build a co2 extractor, I'd come to you first.
What I'm saying is that although I've tried to be very clear and even helpful during my time posting here--it becomes more and more obvious that you interested in being right more than you are interested in finding the truth. With every reply you make, you essentially call out my knowledge as bogus--make assumptions about me being a late bloomer and that I'll "get it someday".
How does the saying go...The truth will set you free...but first it will piss you off.
What I'm saying is it's fucking insulting, dude.
I know what I know, and I know it because I worked for YEARS of my life to know it. Honestly it's clear you haven't ever taken an organic chemistry class--and if you did, that you probably performed terribly in it or have forgotten most of the knowledge gained. How dare you purport yourself to be such a wealth of knowledge when you can't even speak the language of the discipline.
I'm not a late-bloomer nor do I need to get in front of a vessel. I am a scientist--and you need to read a book before you start trying to throw around your book smarts. Wikipedia is no replacement for time spent researching a topic or time spent in a lab learning about chemicals and how they act. You know all about building stuff, but not very much about what it's made up of or how that all works.
As for engineering prowess--it's clear you have that, but it won't get you very far if you ignore science. I mean come on dude, I'm not arguing a case that is my own. I'm arguing the point of every paper ever published on this shit--just google it and REALLY READ a few of the articles. When I say every paper ever, I mean it. Find me one that disagrees. One in probably 500.
I don't mean to be short with you, but it's getting very frustrating. You are basically insulting my entire life by telling me I don't know what the hell I'm talking about and that I'm just young.
It's like you're walking up to Barney and telling him how to be a fucking purple dinosaur.
Why don't you worry about how to be whatever character you are, and leave the dinosaur shit to me.
I'm more than happy to reset the conversation and discuss with you ANY knowledge I have that might be of use to you. I really do appreciate the work you're doing, especially because no one else is doing it and I believe that it absolutely is the way forward.
No matter how much I like you, though, it won't make red blue, or black white, or subcritical extraction more selective than supercritical. It just won't.
The definition of selectivity in extractions fundamentally precludes it from being so. You would know that, if you were well-versed in chemistry.
There's also a large number of other things you'd have known previously in our discussion that I corrected you on. When you first got into this you spouted multiple snippets of science jargon that was completely incorrect. You got names and definitions wrong that even the WORST of organic chem students would answer correctly on a test.
I don't mean that to offend or to deride you, or even to make your opinion seem less pertinent. All I'm saying is one would think it would behoove such a person as has so little knowledge in the field to either widen his own understanding of it, or to accept that there are some things about it which he doesn't understand.
You've done neither--and I am done trying to get you to.
If you want to discuss something else, I'm game--and as I've said more than willing to aid you in any way you can think of.
But as for selectivity in co2 extractions I'm done, and supercritical is the winner for reasons that are based in data and fact and are obvious to any chemist the world over. All one needs to understand to realize this is to understand that subcritical extractions change solvent power linearly and supercritical extractions do not. It is just that. Because of A, you get B.
If you release a subcritical system for extraction and make no such claim to selectivity except as it compares with BHO or QWISO you'll find me your greatest advocate and free advertiser (and probably first customer).
However if you do the same and say it is more selective than supercritical I will be the first there to deride your claims and make sure to let everyone know they are buying a product marketed by someone who scarcely understands the science behind his own device, or its competitors.
The problem is probably as I've said before that I'm using vocabulary which refers to concepts which are infinitely more complicated than they sound at first--like selectivity.
The fact is when you do science you agree upon conventions by which things should be explained. By these conventions that scientists the world over have agreed upon--supercritical extraction is a more selective process. That doesn't mean ANYTHING more than what it means, that by science's definition of selectivity supercritical wins out.
I don't NEED to step up to a vessel to prove that--it's been proven time and again and repeated ad nauseum by sceintists already. In perfectly public and available journals. Most of what was published probably came out before the first commercial machine was even produced.
Why would I step up to repeat an experiment that doesn't need repeated? Part of the way science works is that we all don't have to do EVERY experiment in order to gain the knowledge from it--the experiment need only be repeated and verified by more than a single person.
What I really don't understand about this argument xtractr is that it seems you just can't give up on this--even though I repeatedly concede that subcritical is infinitely better a process for the purposes anyone one this board would be interested in.
Essentially what you're saying is that something cold is hot. You have flipped the definitions. It doesn't mean I'm saying everything you know or have learned is wrong--it just means that you are not correct about this aspect.
I would gladly write you a research paper here full of citations and proof of my claim--but part of me knows you would not accept that and would simply deride it as an "incorrect theory".
I want to make it clear though, NOTHING I have said is based on theory--EVERY WORD is based on data and results which have been published.
Here's whats important dude--for subcritical to make sense here it does not need to be THE MOST SELECTIVE THING. It only needs to be sufficiently selective and cheap in order to blow away the rest of the competition. This by default completely throws supercritical out of the argument.
Here's the thing dude. I don't come here and tell you that the extractor you built is shit--or to presume to explain to you how it works, or which parts could stand improvement. That is for you to do, and I've already thanked you for that as I REALLY DO BELIEVE that you are perhaps one of the first people who will bring the cleanliness and cost effectiveness of a method like this to market. You seem more than capable of doing it, and dedicated to the task. I, again, commend you for that.
At the same time I don't expect you to come here and argue at end for weeks about the SAME thing over and over again. This is something about which it is VERY CLEAR that I know more than you. Instead of disagreeing with me with NO PROOF OR SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF YOUR OWN TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIM, you might consider working with me or probing my knowledge to better attack the problem you want to solve.
Lord knows if I wanted to know how to build a co2 extractor, I'd come to you first.
What I'm saying is that although I've tried to be very clear and even helpful during my time posting here--it becomes more and more obvious that you interested in being right more than you are interested in finding the truth. With every reply you make, you essentially call out my knowledge as bogus--make assumptions about me being a late bloomer and that I'll "get it someday".
How does the saying go...The truth will set you free...but first it will piss you off.
What I'm saying is it's fucking insulting, dude.
I know what I know, and I know it because I worked for YEARS of my life to know it. Honestly it's clear you haven't ever taken an organic chemistry class--and if you did, that you probably performed terribly in it or have forgotten most of the knowledge gained. How dare you purport yourself to be such a wealth of knowledge when you can't even speak the language of the discipline.
I'm not a late-bloomer nor do I need to get in front of a vessel. I am a scientist--and you need to read a book before you start trying to throw around your book smarts. Wikipedia is no replacement for time spent researching a topic or time spent in a lab learning about chemicals and how they act. You know all about building stuff, but not very much about what it's made up of or how that all works.
As for engineering prowess--it's clear you have that, but it won't get you very far if you ignore science. I mean come on dude, I'm not arguing a case that is my own. I'm arguing the point of every paper ever published on this shit--just google it and REALLY READ a few of the articles. When I say every paper ever, I mean it. Find me one that disagrees. One in probably 500.
I don't mean to be short with you, but it's getting very frustrating. You are basically insulting my entire life by telling me I don't know what the hell I'm talking about and that I'm just young.
It's like you're walking up to Barney and telling him how to be a fucking purple dinosaur.
Why don't you worry about how to be whatever character you are, and leave the dinosaur shit to me.
I'm more than happy to reset the conversation and discuss with you ANY knowledge I have that might be of use to you. I really do appreciate the work you're doing, especially because no one else is doing it and I believe that it absolutely is the way forward.
No matter how much I like you, though, it won't make red blue, or black white, or subcritical extraction more selective than supercritical. It just won't.
The definition of selectivity in extractions fundamentally precludes it from being so. You would know that, if you were well-versed in chemistry.
There's also a large number of other things you'd have known previously in our discussion that I corrected you on. When you first got into this you spouted multiple snippets of science jargon that was completely incorrect. You got names and definitions wrong that even the WORST of organic chem students would answer correctly on a test.
I don't mean that to offend or to deride you, or even to make your opinion seem less pertinent. All I'm saying is one would think it would behoove such a person as has so little knowledge in the field to either widen his own understanding of it, or to accept that there are some things about it which he doesn't understand.
You've done neither--and I am done trying to get you to.
If you want to discuss something else, I'm game--and as I've said more than willing to aid you in any way you can think of.
But as for selectivity in co2 extractions I'm done, and supercritical is the winner for reasons that are based in data and fact and are obvious to any chemist the world over. All one needs to understand to realize this is to understand that subcritical extractions change solvent power linearly and supercritical extractions do not. It is just that. Because of A, you get B.
If you release a subcritical system for extraction and make no such claim to selectivity except as it compares with BHO or QWISO you'll find me your greatest advocate and free advertiser (and probably first customer).
However if you do the same and say it is more selective than supercritical I will be the first there to deride your claims and make sure to let everyone know they are buying a product marketed by someone who scarcely understands the science behind his own device, or its competitors.
squiggly
- 3,277
- 263
I'm going to draw you a graph which I hope will make some sense for you as to what is happening here and what exactly it is that I mean. It will be crude but should hopefully get the point across.
Here, I explain below:
View attachment 203181
As promised this graph is crude and isn't really meant as a "graph"
I'm trying to help you visualize what is going on here. I'll explain piece by piece, first the phase diagram.
I've drawn to the left a small z axis indicating density. It is important to realize that density is also changing in this diagram, in fact that is what it's meant to describe (as phases generally occur due to density changes). In ALL areas of this graph except for the supcritical phase, density can be shown to change linearly. Plotting these three and then solvent power vs different substances on the same graph would show very clearly the point I'm trying to illustrate, but that would be a cluster-fuck of a graph so I simplify it visually here by leaving out density, and simply suggesting to you that this happens and we have observed it (and that it just plain makes sense).
So the following two graphs are a cutout of the area from the phase diagram. The first is a cutout of the supercritical box, and the second a portion of the liquid phase. There are two important differences in these graphs.
First, in the supercritical phase, the density changes are not linear, or even logarithmic always. Usually they vary wildly and are unpredictable before you have tested them. This is ploted in the supercritical area of the graph as solvent power that exists in discrete points across the different pressures temps and densities.
On the lower graph, of the liquid phase we see that as we vary the temp and pressure density changes linearly and uniformly.
What's important to remember is the following:
While the graph of solvent power against a "family" of substances in the liquid phase will look VERY similar with regard to its slope and x,y values. The lines 1 2 and 3 are meant to be different substances, not necessarily related in any way--just illustrating that all or most substances will experience this sort of linear change in their ability to dissolve. This is not always true in the supercritical phase and provides a route for "rooting out" a specific temp at which a molecule can be isolated. Furthermore, there is already a lower level opened up for rooting out substances in the supercritical merely by wild variation of density itself.
Let's say you want to separate substance A and substance B as well as possible and you want NONE of substance C to get in. Substance A is the main target.
Let's assume that all three substances are not related to each other closely for sake of ease. So let's say that line describing solvent power towards A intersects with that of B and that it does so exactly as the same point as C begins to solvate.
In this case the only way to completely exclude C is to bring some of B along with it. Many times, but not always supercritical solvation can allow for you to extract something out like this. There are many different methodologies for doing this and that is an area in which a good amount of research is still being done. Different solvent systems are being investigated and the like.
All in all, we say that supercritical is more selective because it has this property of allowing to separate things from one another that are very similar and otherwise usually inseparable (by conventional methods, pre-processing). We say this is selective because it appears to be based off chemical properties to a degree not usually seen in extractions based mostly on polarity.
I have left a lot out, because I feel that it's really your responsibility to try and understand this if you want to know for yourself. I'm willing to help, but only if you're actually willing to listen. I feel like this should be enough to illustrate that I'm really not bullshitting you--that there is some reality behind what I've been trying to explain.
Here, I explain below:
View attachment 203181
As promised this graph is crude and isn't really meant as a "graph"
I'm trying to help you visualize what is going on here. I'll explain piece by piece, first the phase diagram.
I've drawn to the left a small z axis indicating density. It is important to realize that density is also changing in this diagram, in fact that is what it's meant to describe (as phases generally occur due to density changes). In ALL areas of this graph except for the supcritical phase, density can be shown to change linearly. Plotting these three and then solvent power vs different substances on the same graph would show very clearly the point I'm trying to illustrate, but that would be a cluster-fuck of a graph so I simplify it visually here by leaving out density, and simply suggesting to you that this happens and we have observed it (and that it just plain makes sense).
So the following two graphs are a cutout of the area from the phase diagram. The first is a cutout of the supercritical box, and the second a portion of the liquid phase. There are two important differences in these graphs.
First, in the supercritical phase, the density changes are not linear, or even logarithmic always. Usually they vary wildly and are unpredictable before you have tested them. This is ploted in the supercritical area of the graph as solvent power that exists in discrete points across the different pressures temps and densities.
On the lower graph, of the liquid phase we see that as we vary the temp and pressure density changes linearly and uniformly.
What's important to remember is the following:
While the graph of solvent power against a "family" of substances in the liquid phase will look VERY similar with regard to its slope and x,y values. The lines 1 2 and 3 are meant to be different substances, not necessarily related in any way--just illustrating that all or most substances will experience this sort of linear change in their ability to dissolve. This is not always true in the supercritical phase and provides a route for "rooting out" a specific temp at which a molecule can be isolated. Furthermore, there is already a lower level opened up for rooting out substances in the supercritical merely by wild variation of density itself.
Let's say you want to separate substance A and substance B as well as possible and you want NONE of substance C to get in. Substance A is the main target.
Let's assume that all three substances are not related to each other closely for sake of ease. So let's say that line describing solvent power towards A intersects with that of B and that it does so exactly as the same point as C begins to solvate.
In this case the only way to completely exclude C is to bring some of B along with it. Many times, but not always supercritical solvation can allow for you to extract something out like this. There are many different methodologies for doing this and that is an area in which a good amount of research is still being done. Different solvent systems are being investigated and the like.
All in all, we say that supercritical is more selective because it has this property of allowing to separate things from one another that are very similar and otherwise usually inseparable (by conventional methods, pre-processing). We say this is selective because it appears to be based off chemical properties to a degree not usually seen in extractions based mostly on polarity.
I have left a lot out, because I feel that it's really your responsibility to try and understand this if you want to know for yourself. I'm willing to help, but only if you're actually willing to listen. I feel like this should be enough to illustrate that I'm really not bullshitting you--that there is some reality behind what I've been trying to explain.
squiggly
- 3,277
- 263
I didn't say that those lines correspond to solvent power. I'm well aware of that--it's sophomore year chemistry in high school. What I've done is made two separate graphs below the phase diagram of what the solvating power WOULD BE in a randomly selected box of either the supercritical or liquid phase. This isn't meant to be a direct representation--but instead to illustrate the concept. Please read carefully what I'm saying before you respond to it--this was well explained in the above post.
As you note, with increasing temp/pressure solvating power increases and that is why the linear relationships in the liquid phase have positive slopes as pressure/temp increase. What's needing to be considered here is density and its effect on solvation--that is the effect which causes supercritical to be more selective.
As far as what you said in your second post that is in line with what I've been saying--subcrit may end up being of more use in this particular case and for this purpose, but overall as a process supercritical is much more selective. It's like I said though, in supercritical many times families of molecules will solvate at different values in the phase--as it relates to bringing out terpenes and cannabinoids this is probably a BAD thing.
Here's what I'm saying, selective means how well you can tune it to take ONE thing out--when we're speaking in chemistry terms (and because selectivity is a chemistry term it makes sense to speak in them). If you wanted to target say a single terpene of interest--supercritical is your friend.
If you want to bring out only the terpenes and cannabinoids and take them out all at once--you will likely do better with subcrit, much better even. That, unfortunately, isn't selectivity.
I suppose in a manner of speaking (taking liberties with the definition) you could say that subcrit is "more selective" to a group of molecules such as cannabinoids or terpenes, or even a grouping of both of these molecules as compared with supercrit--but that would only be okay to say to communicate a concept, it is not correct in terms of the meaning of the word selective (because selective usually is meant to describe as few things as possible in chemistry--a reaction with high entantioselectivity produces a high yield of one enantiomer versus the other.
I believe this is the concept to which you are referring--that subcritical is better at getting out the total product we want with the least hassle and least other crap we don't want. That is VERY LIKELY the case--I can't say for sure until I read the journals myself but to my mind it makes perfect sense. If you go back to the graph and my explanation you can realize quickly that while the wildly changing densities can help you isolate some things, it can also make it MUCH more difficult to remove a family of chemicals selectively and leave everything else behind. This is best done with a solvation gradient like liquid phase provides (i mentioned this too).
I've said for a long time that supercrit is a GREAT way to get PURE THC--and it is. It's probably the best way. However, I don't mean that to mean it's the best at taking out only the chemicals we're after and nothing else. It will be very random as to what its going to pull out if you're trying to grab every cannabinoid and every terpene. I believe this would be almost impossible to find a single pressure/temp/density combo that will do this--however its very possible in the liquid phase.
As I've been saying I think the real problem is our differing definitions of selectivity. Every time you describe it, it seems to me you're using a different definition than me--or so the context clues tell me.
Here is the chemistry definition:
The discrimination shown by a reagent in competitive attack on two or more substrates or on two or more positions in the same substrate. It is quantitatively expressed by ratios of rate constants of the competing reactions, or by the decadic logarithms of such ratios.
I will also point out to you that this definition was never applied to extraction prior to supercritical CO2--except to describe the difference between polar a non-polar solvents (or solvents sharing polar/non-polar character).
It was instead just understood that you could reduce the temperature to reduce solvent power if you so desired--there was no need to use the term to explain it. There are some exceptions to this--but overall the concept of selective solvation was born with supercritical CO2 extraction.
This was because, for the first time--it was possible to use a solvent to separate two molecules which are very similar SELECTIVELY. One or the other. In theory you could even separate delta-9 THC from the various other isomers of THC using this process. There is no other solvent that can do something like this, and that is called selective solvation. Liquid CO2 at a given temp/pressure will dissolve almost any similar molecule, there will be different rate constants for the solvation but overall the molecules will all come into the solvent and will do so in a similar fashion/speed/preference. There is absolutely no way in hell that you can manipulate liquid CO2 to selectively solvate isomers. There will be virtually no discrimination between them--and the ONLY factor separating them from each other in any type of way will be kinetics (and the effect will be infinitesimal). With supercritical you can begin to separate these things--it is not an exact science-but once you get a program down for a particular extraction you get a reliable way of separating previously inseparable substances (without chromatography or running reactions). It is THIS PHENOMENON which the term selective solvation is intended to describe. Solvating one of two similar substances in a directed way to the complete exclusion of the 2nd molecule.
If you think about it, such a picky system is actually shit for extracting a good cannabinoid/terpene mixture. You'll be leaving out terpenes you want, and picking up random crap you never wanted to begin with. However if you want to target THC and get it all out to exclusion of other cannabinoids--this is your system. Once you get that extract, anything left in there is much easier to get out by other methods than it would've been to separate say THC from a mixture of terpenes. Doing it this way essentially gets ride of the step of column chromatography. This was the intended purpose of this machine (and still is)--it is not a surprise that its bad at doing something which is exactly the opposite of the purpose for which it was intended.
Again I say to you: subcritical is absolutely 100% the way to go for this purpose--keep up the good work.
I'm only correcting your (honestly very slight) misunderstanding of what's at play. I urge you to read more if you are having trouble proving this to yourself---I promise I'm telling you the truth. Please remember--this fact doesn't really upset any of what you've got going on, there is no reason for you to fight this issue. Rather I suggest you go ahead and read a few journals. You may find something useful in there for what you're up to--you never know.
I'm definitely done with this topic--I think I've put enough information out there at this point for everyone to make their own decision.
Graywolf
- 1,597
- 263
Good! Sounds like ya'll are in agreement on the part that I have been waiting on, which is critical or sub critical.
If I understand correctly CO2X, you are achieving that by simply sealing dry ice in a vessel and heating it to achieve pressurization. Insightful and cheap! I admire that in a design!
It is also easier to deal with from a design standpoint, and congratulations on having correctly chosen an austenetic stainless steel vessel, which better retains its mechanical properties at cryogenic temperatures.
For those of ya'll like me that will be playing with this process, pick your vessel materials carefully, as most carbon steels embrittle at cryogenic temperatures and can become a fragmentation grenade.
Good second point SQ! I'm predicting that everyone has their minds made up by now.
I do want to thank ya'll both for leading us through it though, because it was thought provoking!
Ohiofarmer
- 932
- 93
and i typed that with the first thing i said was don't take this with a grain of salt, whats the first thing you say, you definatly cannot decarbox anything while it's in supercrit. state. hahahahahahaha...............no fuckin shit. lol but everything you said is right. lol So for the record are there sulfites in wine?? lol im just fuckin with ya but you get the point taking things people say in a generalized way and then saying that their wrong because they weren't more specific is just impeding the flow of knowledge not clarifying it.
squiggly
- 3,277
- 263
Actually it turned out I was wrong about not being able to decarboxylate in supercrit--it seemed to me this would push equilibrium far away from the decarboxylated products side of the reaction, but I remember reading something awhile back that showed you can do this (the temperature is high enough to overcome the imbalance in supercrit phase). I don't believe the decarboxylation step of THC-A to THC is reversible which might also help to push equilibrium to the right.
My problem isn't with needing further clarification here--it's been quite the opposite in fact. I felt as if some claims were made which were too specific (and incorrect). I'd rather see a something generalized and correct than specific and wrong, and that was the issue here.
When it comes to correcting people I'm only interested in getting the correct information out there--rather than showing that a particular person is right or wrong.
I do this for a very simple reason--I have read many a forum post in my day that turned out to be wrong and helped me along the way to making a mistake or two. I'd have liked someone to correct those various posts as its really difficult to tell credibility on the internet and we, as a species, tend not to take things with a grain of salt when they come to us in this format, with multiple people agreeing with the standpoint.
I'm not here to be right or to win an argument. I make an argument to win it, but only insomuch as doing so will aid a 3rd party in making their decision about what they think is the correct information.
As you implied above, and we've already seen before, I am not infallible nor do I believe myself to be. In fact, when I am corrected on something (convincingly, with proof) I am actually happy about it--because I have learned something. Even more than that, I'm liable to correct anyone in the future who had the same misconception as me--and it's very likely I'll use the same information/argument which was once placed to me in order to do my own convincing.
You corrected an error I made, and while it wasn't an error in my own understanding--but rather a typo--it still makes sense to correct me, as a random person coming along and reading my posts might get the wrong information sans a correction.
Even a tiny thing like a typo can make a big difference (especially in chemistry) and you, or anyone, would've been right to correct me on that (something I conceded to very quickly in that discussion). I actually get a huge amount of enjoyment out of being proven wrong, because it takes a solid argument to convince me--and once that's done I've gained a new solid argument for myself to use (that I stole from you :p ).
That's how I operate, not on some need or want to be right or to correct people. I only do what I would like someone else to do for me about a topic over which my knowledge is lacking--like engineering as a perfect example.
If someone starts telling me about how to safely build a co2 extractor and makes an error--I wouldn't know how to spot that, for that I'd need someone like Graywolf or xtractr to come along and correct said person.
A perfect example presents itself from Graywolf's caution above:
Let's assume someone told me to use carbon steel for my extractor. If I follow that advice (which I myself might not follow blindly, but many would)--I am going to potentially frag myself. In this case, it would help me out alot of Graywolf would come along and explain to me the dangers and what material to use instead.
Now, granted, the corrections I've made on this board are significantly less important (in terms of risk)--they are still of the same form. Wrong thing gets said--I correct it.
The day that can be defined as impeding the flow of knowledge (imparting correct knowledge where previously there was a vacuum of the same)--is the day the human race's ego has really outdone itself.
Being wrong is a great thing, in my opinion.
I always fall back on what my gramps said to me:
Science isn't about doing everything perfectly, it's about making the best mistakes.
If I say something wrong and there is someone else around who knows better and will say something, an opportunity for learning is at hand. My posts of this nature are meant for people who look at things the same way I do. For those who take insult or believe that they always knows what's best--the posts aren't for them and I invite those people to ignore me if it so pleases them.
My problem isn't with needing further clarification here--it's been quite the opposite in fact. I felt as if some claims were made which were too specific (and incorrect). I'd rather see a something generalized and correct than specific and wrong, and that was the issue here.
When it comes to correcting people I'm only interested in getting the correct information out there--rather than showing that a particular person is right or wrong.
I do this for a very simple reason--I have read many a forum post in my day that turned out to be wrong and helped me along the way to making a mistake or two. I'd have liked someone to correct those various posts as its really difficult to tell credibility on the internet and we, as a species, tend not to take things with a grain of salt when they come to us in this format, with multiple people agreeing with the standpoint.
I'm not here to be right or to win an argument. I make an argument to win it, but only insomuch as doing so will aid a 3rd party in making their decision about what they think is the correct information.
As you implied above, and we've already seen before, I am not infallible nor do I believe myself to be. In fact, when I am corrected on something (convincingly, with proof) I am actually happy about it--because I have learned something. Even more than that, I'm liable to correct anyone in the future who had the same misconception as me--and it's very likely I'll use the same information/argument which was once placed to me in order to do my own convincing.
You corrected an error I made, and while it wasn't an error in my own understanding--but rather a typo--it still makes sense to correct me, as a random person coming along and reading my posts might get the wrong information sans a correction.
Even a tiny thing like a typo can make a big difference (especially in chemistry) and you, or anyone, would've been right to correct me on that (something I conceded to very quickly in that discussion). I actually get a huge amount of enjoyment out of being proven wrong, because it takes a solid argument to convince me--and once that's done I've gained a new solid argument for myself to use (that I stole from you :p ).
That's how I operate, not on some need or want to be right or to correct people. I only do what I would like someone else to do for me about a topic over which my knowledge is lacking--like engineering as a perfect example.
If someone starts telling me about how to safely build a co2 extractor and makes an error--I wouldn't know how to spot that, for that I'd need someone like Graywolf or xtractr to come along and correct said person.
A perfect example presents itself from Graywolf's caution above:
Let's assume someone told me to use carbon steel for my extractor. If I follow that advice (which I myself might not follow blindly, but many would)--I am going to potentially frag myself. In this case, it would help me out alot of Graywolf would come along and explain to me the dangers and what material to use instead.
Now, granted, the corrections I've made on this board are significantly less important (in terms of risk)--they are still of the same form. Wrong thing gets said--I correct it.
The day that can be defined as impeding the flow of knowledge (imparting correct knowledge where previously there was a vacuum of the same)--is the day the human race's ego has really outdone itself.
Being wrong is a great thing, in my opinion.
I always fall back on what my gramps said to me:
Science isn't about doing everything perfectly, it's about making the best mistakes.
If I say something wrong and there is someone else around who knows better and will say something, an opportunity for learning is at hand. My posts of this nature are meant for people who look at things the same way I do. For those who take insult or believe that they always knows what's best--the posts aren't for them and I invite those people to ignore me if it so pleases them.
squiggly
- 3,277
- 263
If you're putting Dry ice in to start--then I'm assuming that's as cold as it gets. Shouldn't be considered cryogenic temps in that case--dry ice is stable somewhere near -78C and after looking it up "cryogenic" temps are significantly lower at below -150C.
However if at any point you have it liquid and you rapidly reduce the pressure you could end up with significant "flash" cooling. That is how dry ice is produced generally. Not sure what temp that will take you to.
However if at any point you have it liquid and you rapidly reduce the pressure you could end up with significant "flash" cooling. That is how dry ice is produced generally. Not sure what temp that will take you to.
Graywolf
- 1,597
- 263
Ummmm, sadly I can barely remember organic chemistry over 50 years ago, so I have to fall back on what I retained and learned to better understand over a professional career designing processes and equipment for a Fortune 500 aerospace company, as well as their international competitors. My success was measured not on presenting my eloquent theories, but on whether it worked and met the discounted rate of Return On Investment, Return On Assets, and Pay Back.
So far except to ask questions, to my knowledge I have only encouraged you to just continue in the direction that you are headed and prove your ideas by simply doing it. A Posse ad Esse, from possibility to realization, needs not be defended once it is held complete and operational before naysayers.
If you feel under attack by me, I would appreciate more specifics, so that I can see where we are missing each other. Feel free to PM me if we need a private chat.
Even if I, or any other person watching has any doubts, is immaterial and moot, if you walk your talk. Your success will be in their embarrassed faces, without you lifting a finger or saying a word.
As a point of fact, your use of dry ice and sub critical results thus far, has stirred my creative juices and I will be again considering CO2 extraction, after previously setting it on the back burner.
My professional success is a done deed and a matter of record, so most of those laughing at me aren't any longer.
You don't see me laughing at folks either, because in my most passionate moment believing that I was right, I have been wrong in the past, and I try not to polarize a subject up front, because I've found people then hate me for being right and when I'm wrong, there is the crow thang.
What I did find, is that my detractors were my best performance reviewers, because they made a concerted effort to identify all the weaknesses in my hypothesis, and that those around me that were gifted and trained in areas that I am not, are my greatest asset. What I learned from them, made my success possible!
I sense that Squiggly and Ohio Farmer are old enough to speak for themselves, so I will let them do so, but my greatest hope is that we can rise above personal attacks, and proceed with the actual project.
Graywolf
- 1,597
- 263
-78C is cold enough to embrittle carbon steel, but you are right that technically cryogenics starts at -150C and I misused the word.
Consider that a pressure vessel also under goes cyclic stresses with pressurization and discharge, in addition to the refrigeration produced by the release of the compression. Unless someone has a better suggestion, I still recommend austenitic stainless steel for the vessel, which was my core point.
squiggly
- 3,277
- 263
I want to make it clear that, aside from the comment made about organic chemistry knowledge, I have not intended to stoop to personal attacks.
I felt that particular attack was warranted because I feel that the logic being employed against me in the argument was pretty ridiculous--and I felt insulted.
From my perspective here's how a portion of the argument has played out (keeping in mind that I'm only addressing this particular order of events and not the whole discussion).
First you came on to the board using big science words (incorrectly), and from my point of view most of what you had to say was science this and science that.
I'd didn't seem to me at that particular time that you were saying, application this and application that instead. It was clear you were saying words and intending them to have a meaning which they do not carry--and in this instance I'm even staying away from the word "selective"--there were other questionable words and phrases you employed. I won't go back to check up on it--but I remember there being quite a few things you said in "science-y" fashion that really hurt my sensibilities :)
All I'm saying is the following:
Science is not just the process of studying the world around us.
Science is an institution with rules and regulations by which we study the world around us. It is important to make this distinction because without agreeing to rules and conventions it is impossible to accurately and reliably communicate discoveries--or reproduce experiments to confirm their existence.
It is for that reason that wording in science is actually of the utmost important. Much as a lawyer exists to know what lawyer language means--we exist to know what science language means. Yes--there are classes which have to do with nothing but how to say something in a science journal without looking the fool--even improper grammar can throw a meaning off, let alone an improperly used word. We see the same thing with law. "Congress shall make no law concerning an establishment of religion." That wording was imprecise (unfortunately) and the result has been hundreds of years of argument in our society over what they mean. In science we negate the need for such argument by stringently applying vocabulary--and by requiring specificity where it is needed, and demanding generalizations and theories where specifics are not known.
You could read journals till you're blue in the face--but if you don't have the vocabulary and the understanding behind it you will be forever crippled in your quest for knowledge in such journals. The reason being that you, by not adopting the conventions of all scientists previous to you (and those writing the documents you are reading), you preclude yourself from using their discoveries as jumping-off points for your own. At least in a 1-to-1 fashion.
The human quest for knowledge is a collaborative one.
As far as the "selective" thing goes. We've beaten that to death. If you don't believe me yet, I maintain that you are using the word incorrectly and don't know it's intended meaning but have instead created a meaning for the word which is entirely your own--and outside the conventions of science as a whole.
Now let me be clear as hell on the following:
Just because you are not doing science by the conventions of everyone else--DOES NOT mean that you are wrong, that your theories are, or anything like that. You are taking a different path and while I think we can all agree that truth is one (when speaking on the natural order of things)--it doesn't matter the path you take to get there. However, it does matter what you CALL that path.
I'm not saying you're wrong--I'm just saying that you're not doing science if you refuse to follow the conventions by which science is done. You are doing pseudo-science, and in this case I do not mean that to be a derogatory term as it usually is meant. I mean it as something which resembles science and uses some of its strengths--but does not adopt fully the form science defines.
I simply mean to say that you are operating from outside the conventions of the institution with rules and regulations that we scientists call science.
Science is not an explanation of the natural order of things--it is an iterative process by which we probe that order. In order to make interesting findings we have to make sure that we are all using the same probe--otherwise we cannot compare results.
If Celsius means something different to you than it does to me--we will end up at a different answer using an equation involving temperature. This is why conventions are important. Temperature isn't even a real thing--it's a term we made up to describe thermal forces and conditions and the method we've developed for measuring that.
In science it is often said that if you don't know to what degree of accuracy and precision you have made a measurement the measurement is useless. We don't only take a measurement, we take a measurement and use a painstaking process (many times calibration is over 3/4 of time spent in a chemistry lab) by which to prove we have made that measurement to within a given degree of error. This is a process that falls back on itself by repeating the inquiry on the process used to determine the error in the measurement. I.e. we measure the measurement.
Selectivity does not mean how well a solvent can pull out a type of substance in an extraction, or how much better it does so to exclusion of the most other molecules vs. a competing process.
A scientist would never make such a definition because it is very general and is confounding due to too many variables--it would be difficult to apply broadly to a wide array of processes. For instance, what does "most other molecules" mean? Does it mean the least number of molecules, the least unwanted ones for that particular reaction (this is actually too specific a definition for the word selectively to apply broadly enough), the least molecules of a particular type?
No.
Instead the definition is how well a solvent can pull out difficult to separate molecules such as isomers or very chemically similar molecules (such as a group of non-polar molecules).
In supercritical extraction you can pull apart non-polar molecules one at a time if you so desire (depending on the precision of your machine ultimately). That is a selective process as the institution with rules and regulation known as science defines it. It is perhaps one of the most selective processes in all of chemistry.
Separating isomers by any other method but chromatography was a non starter (without performing a reaction) for a long time. Even the chromatography used to separate isomers was difficult to develop initially and post-dated the original discovery of chromatography significantly. This process changed everything, though--and removed the need for chromatography in many cases.
I think the problem here is that xtratr doesn't really have a counterargument to this, and instead goes off on various tangents while still maintaining his position that I'm just wrong because I am--and that he's right because he is, and because he put some CO2 into an extractor with some weed and made oil. I'm sorry but, you'll forgive me if as a scientist--I do not take your word for it.
If I'm wrong I'd really like you to explain to me why, how, under which processes and conditions? What results can you show to prove me wrong?
Now, keep in mind that I'm not saying you're wrong about using CO2 to extract the way you are. I believe you are doing it the right way. I'm not a hater or a nay-sayer. I think you're on to something big honestly.
There are two different arguments here:
1. The selectivity of CO2 extractions (supercrit and subcrit).
2. The utility of CO2 extractions (supercrit and subcrit).
In argument 1:
I have offered numerous explanations coming from different angles and using different methods of explanation--yet with the same unifying science behind them.
Xtractr has not offered a single such proof of concept, and in fact has mostly spent his time in defense of this idea insulting my intelligence and knowledge and putting his engineering and lab achievements on a pedestal of which they are not deserving as it pertains to this particular argument (argument 1).
It does not pertain to the argument because he is not offering comparisons done in a scientific way between the two processes, he offers no data. As far as the science is concerned his point is moot--because he has not been doing science. He has been experimenting, but that is not mutually exclusive with doing science.
In argument 2:
All of the experimenting comes into play. It makes sense to talk about it here because it actually applies. This argument, however, is one that you are having with yourself, xtractor. I haven't seen one person detract from the utility of this process in this thread.
We all agree with you. I am probably one of your biggest supporters because doing it this way would make sense to any chemist I have ever met. In fact, I am VERY SURPRISED this has not been the norm for years now. CO2 subcrit is the way forward for cannabis extractions, period. It's cleaner, safer, easier, and has the potential to be cheaper than all other methods.
I felt that particular attack was warranted because I feel that the logic being employed against me in the argument was pretty ridiculous--and I felt insulted.
From my perspective here's how a portion of the argument has played out (keeping in mind that I'm only addressing this particular order of events and not the whole discussion).
First you came on to the board using big science words (incorrectly), and from my point of view most of what you had to say was science this and science that.
I'd didn't seem to me at that particular time that you were saying, application this and application that instead. It was clear you were saying words and intending them to have a meaning which they do not carry--and in this instance I'm even staying away from the word "selective"--there were other questionable words and phrases you employed. I won't go back to check up on it--but I remember there being quite a few things you said in "science-y" fashion that really hurt my sensibilities :)
All I'm saying is the following:
Science is not just the process of studying the world around us.
Science is an institution with rules and regulations by which we study the world around us. It is important to make this distinction because without agreeing to rules and conventions it is impossible to accurately and reliably communicate discoveries--or reproduce experiments to confirm their existence.
It is for that reason that wording in science is actually of the utmost important. Much as a lawyer exists to know what lawyer language means--we exist to know what science language means. Yes--there are classes which have to do with nothing but how to say something in a science journal without looking the fool--even improper grammar can throw a meaning off, let alone an improperly used word. We see the same thing with law. "Congress shall make no law concerning an establishment of religion." That wording was imprecise (unfortunately) and the result has been hundreds of years of argument in our society over what they mean. In science we negate the need for such argument by stringently applying vocabulary--and by requiring specificity where it is needed, and demanding generalizations and theories where specifics are not known.
You could read journals till you're blue in the face--but if you don't have the vocabulary and the understanding behind it you will be forever crippled in your quest for knowledge in such journals. The reason being that you, by not adopting the conventions of all scientists previous to you (and those writing the documents you are reading), you preclude yourself from using their discoveries as jumping-off points for your own. At least in a 1-to-1 fashion.
The human quest for knowledge is a collaborative one.
As far as the "selective" thing goes. We've beaten that to death. If you don't believe me yet, I maintain that you are using the word incorrectly and don't know it's intended meaning but have instead created a meaning for the word which is entirely your own--and outside the conventions of science as a whole.
Now let me be clear as hell on the following:
Just because you are not doing science by the conventions of everyone else--DOES NOT mean that you are wrong, that your theories are, or anything like that. You are taking a different path and while I think we can all agree that truth is one (when speaking on the natural order of things)--it doesn't matter the path you take to get there. However, it does matter what you CALL that path.
I'm not saying you're wrong--I'm just saying that you're not doing science if you refuse to follow the conventions by which science is done. You are doing pseudo-science, and in this case I do not mean that to be a derogatory term as it usually is meant. I mean it as something which resembles science and uses some of its strengths--but does not adopt fully the form science defines.
I simply mean to say that you are operating from outside the conventions of the institution with rules and regulations that we scientists call science.
Science is not an explanation of the natural order of things--it is an iterative process by which we probe that order. In order to make interesting findings we have to make sure that we are all using the same probe--otherwise we cannot compare results.
If Celsius means something different to you than it does to me--we will end up at a different answer using an equation involving temperature. This is why conventions are important. Temperature isn't even a real thing--it's a term we made up to describe thermal forces and conditions and the method we've developed for measuring that.
In science it is often said that if you don't know to what degree of accuracy and precision you have made a measurement the measurement is useless. We don't only take a measurement, we take a measurement and use a painstaking process (many times calibration is over 3/4 of time spent in a chemistry lab) by which to prove we have made that measurement to within a given degree of error. This is a process that falls back on itself by repeating the inquiry on the process used to determine the error in the measurement. I.e. we measure the measurement.
Selectivity does not mean how well a solvent can pull out a type of substance in an extraction, or how much better it does so to exclusion of the most other molecules vs. a competing process.
A scientist would never make such a definition because it is very general and is confounding due to too many variables--it would be difficult to apply broadly to a wide array of processes. For instance, what does "most other molecules" mean? Does it mean the least number of molecules, the least unwanted ones for that particular reaction (this is actually too specific a definition for the word selectively to apply broadly enough), the least molecules of a particular type?
No.
Instead the definition is how well a solvent can pull out difficult to separate molecules such as isomers or very chemically similar molecules (such as a group of non-polar molecules).
In supercritical extraction you can pull apart non-polar molecules one at a time if you so desire (depending on the precision of your machine ultimately). That is a selective process as the institution with rules and regulation known as science defines it. It is perhaps one of the most selective processes in all of chemistry.
Separating isomers by any other method but chromatography was a non starter (without performing a reaction) for a long time. Even the chromatography used to separate isomers was difficult to develop initially and post-dated the original discovery of chromatography significantly. This process changed everything, though--and removed the need for chromatography in many cases.
I think the problem here is that xtratr doesn't really have a counterargument to this, and instead goes off on various tangents while still maintaining his position that I'm just wrong because I am--and that he's right because he is, and because he put some CO2 into an extractor with some weed and made oil. I'm sorry but, you'll forgive me if as a scientist--I do not take your word for it.
If I'm wrong I'd really like you to explain to me why, how, under which processes and conditions? What results can you show to prove me wrong?
Now, keep in mind that I'm not saying you're wrong about using CO2 to extract the way you are. I believe you are doing it the right way. I'm not a hater or a nay-sayer. I think you're on to something big honestly.
There are two different arguments here:
1. The selectivity of CO2 extractions (supercrit and subcrit).
2. The utility of CO2 extractions (supercrit and subcrit).
In argument 1:
I have offered numerous explanations coming from different angles and using different methods of explanation--yet with the same unifying science behind them.
Xtractr has not offered a single such proof of concept, and in fact has mostly spent his time in defense of this idea insulting my intelligence and knowledge and putting his engineering and lab achievements on a pedestal of which they are not deserving as it pertains to this particular argument (argument 1).
It does not pertain to the argument because he is not offering comparisons done in a scientific way between the two processes, he offers no data. As far as the science is concerned his point is moot--because he has not been doing science. He has been experimenting, but that is not mutually exclusive with doing science.
In argument 2:
All of the experimenting comes into play. It makes sense to talk about it here because it actually applies. This argument, however, is one that you are having with yourself, xtractor. I haven't seen one person detract from the utility of this process in this thread.
We all agree with you. I am probably one of your biggest supporters because doing it this way would make sense to any chemist I have ever met. In fact, I am VERY SURPRISED this has not been the norm for years now. CO2 subcrit is the way forward for cannabis extractions, period. It's cleaner, safer, easier, and has the potential to be cheaper than all other methods.
squiggly
- 3,277
- 263
(Continued....)
What I think the big problem we're having here is a case of xtractr first of all believing that the 2nd argument exists in the first place. It doesn't--there is no need to defend your process. He has been perpetuating the first argument as if it is the second (non existent) one.
I'm here to tell you dude, that you can be wrong about the definition of ONE WORD and still be right about everything else you've said here. In fact, this has been my argument the entire time. This all began as me trying to correct the definition of one word for you, and then you getting super-incredibly-defensive-and-insulting.
This is not "Asscity" as you put it. You are not being attacked. Your defenses are un-needed. What I'd like to do is have a discussion with you rather than a defense-of-non-attacked-principle-fest.
If you truly believe that in scientific terms (rules, regulations) I have made an error in explaining that supercritical is more selective. I want to hear your science response. I want you to prove me wrong using the same conventions that I have used to prove me right. That's what science is about. Before starting an argument we define the space it will inhabit. We decide what the limitations and rules are of arguing a scientific point before we even say the first word.
So the rules are clear:
Make a counterpoint. Use references to data (which has been repeated). Use only facts in your argument.
If, as it relates to the supercrit selectivity argument, you are unable to do that--just drop it already. If you don't want to follow the rules of science argument, don't have one. Instead focus on doing the process your way--which is a PERFECTLY FINE way to do it. It just isn't science as the science community defines it (which means you are not being a part of that community).
Until you make such a counterpoint, I've said my last word on supercrit extraction--because I really don't think that's the issue here. What we should be discussing is how to optimize subcritical extraction for this particular process. I still plan to participate in this thread--but any references to supercritical extraction or a comparison of the same with any other method that does not include the consideration of a reproducible set of data will fall on deaf ears as it regards myself.
In a sense, I'm saying that unless you want to change your direction 180 degrees on your argumentation methodology in regards to argument 1--that argument is now over.
Let's move on to the topic of argument two (not the argument itself, it doesn't exist, silly!)--and get down to the business of getting the subcritical process perfected.
If you could put some paragraph breaks into further replies I'd also appreciate it, my eyes don't focus in on the walls of texts very well. I'm not trying to be a dick I just actually want to read what you have to say and it's difficult to when its formatted that way.
Please understand that in any other case I would probably have walked away from this thread long ago--I've made my point in more ways than I care to count. The truth is I keep sticking around because I hope the argument will be resolved and we can move on with the real business of getting subcrit CO2 underway.
I'm only sticking around because I honestly feel like I can bring something to the table as it goes to refining this process. For the remainder of this thread, sans a scientific argument, I will be limiting my responses to that intent solely.
What I think the big problem we're having here is a case of xtractr first of all believing that the 2nd argument exists in the first place. It doesn't--there is no need to defend your process. He has been perpetuating the first argument as if it is the second (non existent) one.
I'm here to tell you dude, that you can be wrong about the definition of ONE WORD and still be right about everything else you've said here. In fact, this has been my argument the entire time. This all began as me trying to correct the definition of one word for you, and then you getting super-incredibly-defensive-and-insulting.
This is not "Asscity" as you put it. You are not being attacked. Your defenses are un-needed. What I'd like to do is have a discussion with you rather than a defense-of-non-attacked-principle-fest.
If you truly believe that in scientific terms (rules, regulations) I have made an error in explaining that supercritical is more selective. I want to hear your science response. I want you to prove me wrong using the same conventions that I have used to prove me right. That's what science is about. Before starting an argument we define the space it will inhabit. We decide what the limitations and rules are of arguing a scientific point before we even say the first word.
So the rules are clear:
Make a counterpoint. Use references to data (which has been repeated). Use only facts in your argument.
If, as it relates to the supercrit selectivity argument, you are unable to do that--just drop it already. If you don't want to follow the rules of science argument, don't have one. Instead focus on doing the process your way--which is a PERFECTLY FINE way to do it. It just isn't science as the science community defines it (which means you are not being a part of that community).
Until you make such a counterpoint, I've said my last word on supercrit extraction--because I really don't think that's the issue here. What we should be discussing is how to optimize subcritical extraction for this particular process. I still plan to participate in this thread--but any references to supercritical extraction or a comparison of the same with any other method that does not include the consideration of a reproducible set of data will fall on deaf ears as it regards myself.
In a sense, I'm saying that unless you want to change your direction 180 degrees on your argumentation methodology in regards to argument 1--that argument is now over.
Let's move on to the topic of argument two (not the argument itself, it doesn't exist, silly!)--and get down to the business of getting the subcritical process perfected.
If you could put some paragraph breaks into further replies I'd also appreciate it, my eyes don't focus in on the walls of texts very well. I'm not trying to be a dick I just actually want to read what you have to say and it's difficult to when its formatted that way.
Please understand that in any other case I would probably have walked away from this thread long ago--I've made my point in more ways than I care to count. The truth is I keep sticking around because I hope the argument will be resolved and we can move on with the real business of getting subcrit CO2 underway.
I'm only sticking around because I honestly feel like I can bring something to the table as it goes to refining this process. For the remainder of this thread, sans a scientific argument, I will be limiting my responses to that intent solely.
HerbalDreamin
- 11
- 3
Co2...I think you need to take some time and read what Squiggly is trying to get across. He brings up some VERY good points, and you seem to just disregard them or throw them by the waste side. You say the same thing over and over brother, and frankly I'm surprised Squigs even dealing with your nonsense.
Like what is the point of the post above me? To say you're going all out on CO2, and no one can stop you now? Honestly the only helpful posts I've found on this thread are ones not coming from you.
Like what is the point of the post above me? To say you're going all out on CO2, and no one can stop you now? Honestly the only helpful posts I've found on this thread are ones not coming from you.
squiggly
- 3,277
- 263
I honestly thought he'd like, you know, read something I said one of these times. He is still arguing the fictitious point that because I know what selectivity means and stand by that definition I must be ill experienced or "I'm not stepping out of the box".
The truth is that the definition exists inside a box. That's what a definition is. If you want to step out of the box in your use of it--you've done exactly as I said before. Made a meaning for the word which is entirely your own and means the opposite of what the rest of the world accepts.
Far be it from me to fault someone for saying Hi instead of goodbye when they leave company. If that's how they want to do it, we all know what you mean. It comes through in this case that you understand many of the underlying scientific principles. Of course you would have to in order to build an extractor.
It's comes through equally clear, however, that what you are communicating is the opposite of what you mean when it comes to our one point of difference.
Don't worry, Herbal, I realize by now this is a lost cause. My posts stopped being solely for xtractr a long time back in this thread--I was hoping he'd listen to reason but it seems he's more into saying random things which have nothing to do with anything I've said.
HerbalDreamin
- 11
- 3
CO2...you weren't "full on" learning anything. That would require you to take classes and actually understand what your talking about. You just skimmed over a bunch of information already out there and twisted in your own way. I'm not saying this doesn't work but it isn't the "full on" approach...it's more of a...what's the right word, shortcut?
I feel in order for you "to make it easier for a bunch of stoners who frankly know enough" requires you to explain what you have learned, and I just don't see that happening. Your responses are repetitive, off topic, and frankly quite juvenile. It's kind of sad that you probably have ten, twenty years on me yet you act like a child. It is impossible for you to debate because any time someone brings up a good point, you throw it by the waste side and then repeat something you had already said the previous post.
I guess what I'm trying to say is if you want to teach people something that you think you know...then learn how to articulate your sentences while staying on topic. Like you see the post at the beginning of this page? That's exactly what I'm talking about, nothing to do with the thread...you just throw it in there because you think it makes you look better or something.
This is the exact reason you were banned from GC brother, you couldn't stay on topic and honestly just became a troll.
I feel in order for you "to make it easier for a bunch of stoners who frankly know enough" requires you to explain what you have learned, and I just don't see that happening. Your responses are repetitive, off topic, and frankly quite juvenile. It's kind of sad that you probably have ten, twenty years on me yet you act like a child. It is impossible for you to debate because any time someone brings up a good point, you throw it by the waste side and then repeat something you had already said the previous post.
I guess what I'm trying to say is if you want to teach people something that you think you know...then learn how to articulate your sentences while staying on topic. Like you see the post at the beginning of this page? That's exactly what I'm talking about, nothing to do with the thread...you just throw it in there because you think it makes you look better or something.
This is the exact reason you were banned from GC brother, you couldn't stay on topic and honestly just became a troll.
squiggly
- 3,277
- 263
I don't mean to say that you must take classes to get it as well as I do. I try to avoid being pedantic as I inadvertently come off that way to some people at times--because I know a little about a lot (and a lot about a few things) and always have something to say or a piece of information that may have gotten left behind to add.
What I've learned in school is perfectly accessible to others at home--the books I read can be purchased. There isn't a great substitute for hands on lab work I don't think, but this is not always essential to understanding. The biggest drawback to learning it on your own and not at a school is lack of direction--you may not even know which topics from various chemical disciplines play into one another--or what direction to go once you've finished the basics (biochem, analytical, physical, organic, inorganic computational).
In the case of a person with a bad professor, you'll be about equal with them. However, nothing is going to replace a great professor who's life goal is to make more scientists. I've had a few of those and they changed my life big-time. I work with one now. The man is a fucking genius and takes time out of his day to discuss literally anything about chemistry, careers, or academics in general with me.
I have a free license to call him at ANY time, even 3:30am if the question relates to chemistry. You can't beat a genius on speed dial when it comes to wrapping your head around a new or difficult concept.
History is full of stories of geniuses who were self taught. I believe I saw a TED talk awhile back of a man in Africa (I believe) who studied up on physics from outdated books at a shitty library and built a wind turbine out of garbage to power his village.
The guy probably knows more about physics than I do and I've taken easily 7 or 8 physics classes between high school and now. So school isn't a prerequisite--that's in part why I've been encouraging xtractr to just really read for understanding about this stuff. Fill in the blanks in this concept (which are obviously there). The information is widely acceptable and comes in enough formats that I think just about anyone could find a version that made sense to them.
Granted, journals cost money--and I'm lucky to have free access to thousands of them--but it's clear you're missing some of the basics even, and those can be googled honestly.
I feel like if someone were to really really put in the leg work into figuring this one out--they'd find time and again in writing (yes, with experimental data--not just a slew of theories as xtractr would have us believe) that things simply are the way I've laid them out (albeit I have vastly oversimplified them).
That's why my challenge is for co2 to bring some data, or a paper, to the forefront which denies or contradicts anything I've said. I haven't cited any such source myself--but I have read them and so I know they exist. I infer by their existence (and the fact many are recent) that there aren't any published materials out there which disprove the claim.
I don't feel like its my responsibility to read the journals for him and submit a research paper to THCFarmer detailing my findings. I'm perfectly capable of doing that--but the fact that (due to lack of their existence) xtractr is unable to do the same thing in supporting his opinion, I think it's funnier to ask him to prove it and hope he spends hours of his time reading articles which might as well say "you were wrong co2xtractr" in the hopes that he'll find one tiny statement that disagrees with something I said ( but probably still wouldn't dismount the overarching explanation).
What I've learned in school is perfectly accessible to others at home--the books I read can be purchased. There isn't a great substitute for hands on lab work I don't think, but this is not always essential to understanding. The biggest drawback to learning it on your own and not at a school is lack of direction--you may not even know which topics from various chemical disciplines play into one another--or what direction to go once you've finished the basics (biochem, analytical, physical, organic, inorganic computational).
In the case of a person with a bad professor, you'll be about equal with them. However, nothing is going to replace a great professor who's life goal is to make more scientists. I've had a few of those and they changed my life big-time. I work with one now. The man is a fucking genius and takes time out of his day to discuss literally anything about chemistry, careers, or academics in general with me.
I have a free license to call him at ANY time, even 3:30am if the question relates to chemistry. You can't beat a genius on speed dial when it comes to wrapping your head around a new or difficult concept.
History is full of stories of geniuses who were self taught. I believe I saw a TED talk awhile back of a man in Africa (I believe) who studied up on physics from outdated books at a shitty library and built a wind turbine out of garbage to power his village.
The guy probably knows more about physics than I do and I've taken easily 7 or 8 physics classes between high school and now. So school isn't a prerequisite--that's in part why I've been encouraging xtractr to just really read for understanding about this stuff. Fill in the blanks in this concept (which are obviously there). The information is widely acceptable and comes in enough formats that I think just about anyone could find a version that made sense to them.
Granted, journals cost money--and I'm lucky to have free access to thousands of them--but it's clear you're missing some of the basics even, and those can be googled honestly.
I feel like if someone were to really really put in the leg work into figuring this one out--they'd find time and again in writing (yes, with experimental data--not just a slew of theories as xtractr would have us believe) that things simply are the way I've laid them out (albeit I have vastly oversimplified them).
That's why my challenge is for co2 to bring some data, or a paper, to the forefront which denies or contradicts anything I've said. I haven't cited any such source myself--but I have read them and so I know they exist. I infer by their existence (and the fact many are recent) that there aren't any published materials out there which disprove the claim.
I don't feel like its my responsibility to read the journals for him and submit a research paper to THCFarmer detailing my findings. I'm perfectly capable of doing that--but the fact that (due to lack of their existence) xtractr is unable to do the same thing in supporting his opinion, I think it's funnier to ask him to prove it and hope he spends hours of his time reading articles which might as well say "you were wrong co2xtractr" in the hopes that he'll find one tiny statement that disagrees with something I said ( but probably still wouldn't dismount the overarching explanation).
Latest posts
-
Good morning everyone!- GoldenDragondnw posted
-
Spider Farmer 420 Giveaway-GlowR40 LED Grow Light & Clip-on Fan!- LoveGrowingIt posted
-
Outdoor grow in Southeast Michigan 2024- Oldchucky posted
-
Inkbird temp controler, thank you
- LoveGrowingIt posted
-
What do you think, male or female?- orggrwr posted