Graywolf
- 1,597
- 263
you can youtube my cheesy video,420 honey oil extraction co2. its just a rough video showing how i use co2 as a solvent of choice.
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.idk about the ferris wheel idea, when the system reaches an equallibrium, your psi will be pretty low.thats why i ditched the idea of tank to tank extraction, the damn thing wouldnt fill but half at best. no preesure-no juice. you need about 55 - 65 bar to carry out a worthy extraction 798psi-942psi min. anything above this pressure does extract more cannabinoids, but not at a rate to where its making the extract more potent, it does have more dissolved cannabinoids, but not so that it has potency the fact is the concentrate has just diluted extract w waxes, fats, and other inactive constituents that only is benificial to yield. so when ever you introduce another vessel in the mix all the empty space needs to build up w pressure and will bog down the psi drastically. i ditched that concept long time ago, but i thought it was how to do it. so i stick to what works or shows promising signs of development. who knows i may have clogged my system w too much pot that run? maybe had a bad connection or whatever and it gave negative results, so i never persued it. may work way better than my methods know used, but i ditched it perhaps prematurely.
Those lines aren't the solvating power of co2 diagrams, those lines corespond to the phases in which co2 exists. These three lines corespond to the gas, liquid, and solid phases. They all meet at the triple point where it then becomes a supercritical fluid. Its not a solvating diagram, even though increase the pressure/heat diagrams and the solvating power also increases. This isn't selectivity, just the opposite as selectivity means to be selective and reject certain things, anything soluable at this pressure/temp that is soluable will be dissolved. Not selective sorry, everything soluable come on down. That's not high selectivity.
Again I say to you: subcritical is absolutely 100% the way to go for this purpose--keep up the good work.
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.
You definitely cannot decarboxylate anything in fluid co2. This is literally the best way possible to protect against decarboxylation, cold temperature, high pressure, disolved in co2. As decarboxylation is the loss of a co2 group and low pressure and hig temperature are the optimal conditions--it really does not get much better than this.
The non-pfizer brands of extractors are completely legit and operate based on the same science. They have different designs and may be less efficient, but i assure you the underlying chemistry is sound. At issue here is desired purity. At pfizer there is a certain level of chemical hygiene required because many of their products can be toxic if they go thru undesired reactions along the way. When one of the enantiomers of the drug you create causes babies to grow flippers, it is important that you not--for lack of a better way to say it--fuck it up. This level of purity and production efficiency (less loss of desired chemicals/solvents) is absolutrly not necessary for extracting cannabinoids. Your argument is way off base. Furthermore no licensing is required to operate this type of machinery.
Source: I am an organic chemistry graduate student.
what up ohiofarmer, graywolf, squiggly, i need not argue over something i know is factual. ikc how many hours you put into your studies. idc if your valadictorian of your university, because if the guys who know there solvents were to hear you now, they would get as much amusement from this as i do. your theories make perfect sense, but the fact is not so. rather than argue over what state is more selective, im thinking im just going to start a thread made for those of us who actually extract w carbon dioxide. .
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?