Honey Bee Oil Extractor Healthy?

[Steve Gray]

is is healthy to use this honey bee extractor ive been hearing about? i read tht its some kind of specially chemically resistant plastic but im not sure and i wanted to make sure. what do yall think about it

 

[rusty]

eh, u can get a pyrex one on ebay for about the same price, i dunno why anyone would buy one of those things to be honest…

 

[sky_blue]

is is healthy to use this honey bee extractor ive been hearing about? i read tht its some kind of specially chemically resistant plastic but im not sure and i wanted to make sure. what do yall think about it

Have one...save the $....get better quality.

 

[ethnoman]

Pyrex FTW.

 

[stickyicky]

aircraft alluminum. don't break like glass.

 

[Graywolf]

The Honeybee extractor is made of Polypropylene, which is butane resistant. See http://www.coleparmer.com/Chemical-Resistance

The drawback that I see with the design, is that it is too large an ID for efficient single pass column extraction. Better to use an extractor under an inch ID and for a small unit, consider the stainless turkey baster from Bed, Breakfast, and Beyond for $7.99.

 

[caregiverken]

The Honeybee extractor is made of Polypropylene, which is butane resistant. See http://www.coleparmer.com/Chemical-Resistance

The drawback that I see with the design, is that it is too large an ID for efficient single pass column extraction. Better to use an extractor under an inch ID and for a small unit, consider the stainless turkey baster from Bed, Breakfast, and Beyond for $7.99.

I always read your Posts, Greywolf...always good info. thanks

But what does that baster hold..Half zip? What a pain in the ass..lol ;)

I have pounds of larf and trim to make into oil
...I dont have time or the desire to pack columns all day....:confused:

I have 5 gallons of 99% Iso ...gonna go that route....
maybe just make mostly edible Simpson oilo_O

 

[Graywolf]

Tis true that a turkey baster would be a poor choice for processing pounds, and that and Iso bath would trump it.

The fastest and cheapest way that we've found to process pounds, is the Terpenator Mk III, which will process around 1.3 pounds per hour running full tilt, at a cost of about $0.038 (three point eight cents) per gram.

 

[caregiverken]

Tis true that a turkey baster would be a poor choice for processing pounds, and that and Iso bath would trump it.

The fastest and cheapest way that we've found to process pounds, is the Terpenator Mk III, which will process around 1.3 pounds per hour running full tilt, at a cost of about $0.038 (three point eight cents) per gram.

im looking at Skunkpharm right now
:)

 

[squiggly]

The Honeybee extractor is made of Polypropylene, which is butane resistant. See http://www.coleparmer.com/Chemical-Resistance

The drawback that I see with the design, is that it is too large an ID for efficient single pass column extraction. Better to use an extractor under an inch ID and for a small unit, consider the stainless turkey baster from Bed, Breakfast, and Beyond for $7.99.

Careful gray, when were talking about diameters for columns--the column length is also a part of this calculation.

Generally, what we're trying to maximize in a column separation is the number (N) of theoretical plates.


We use something known as the Van Deemter equation to do this:

Where

• HETP = height equivalent to a theoretical plate, a measure of the resolving power of the column [m]
• A = Eddy-diffusion parameter, related to channeling through a non-ideal packing [m]
• B = diffusion coefficient of the eluting particles in the longitudinal direction, resulting in dispersion [m2 s-1]
• C = Resistance to mass transfer coefficient of the analyte between mobile and stationary phase
• u = Linear Velocity [m s-1]

Once we have calculated the HETP we can find the number of theoretical plates:

Where H is the column height.


In reality the shorter length affects resolution the most--which is to say that it will take more fluid per length to fully extract (if the pass is being done continuously and there is 0 soak time). It also has implications for resolution--but that is not important here.


Through a different analysis we can find the number of plates if we know the retention time and peak width/height of the analytes.

N=16(tR/W)^2

​

where tR is the retention time, W is the width of the peak.

While it can be difficult to control channeling in a wider column--proper packing can and should avoid this if you're accounting for pressure. One way to avoid channeling is to split your column. IE: Little bud, then a grainy material on top, then more bud, more grainy material (silica and sand come to mind).


The biggest effect here is on resolution. Efficiency, as measured by the number of theoretical plates, is inversely proportional to particle size (column width) and directly proportional to column length.

However, for this process we are not trying to separate anything really--not chromatographically at least--in fact our purposes are exactly the opposite. We want to maximize throughput, not efficiency.

For this purpose a wider and shorter column (subject to optimization) would be better in terms of solvent required for complete column extraction. In reality, a soak is the best possible case--excepting that we have low control over soak time without a proper apparatus (we need down to the second control over either soak time or temperature this to make this beneficial).

A column of any sort is really inefficient for this purpose--due to the mechanics involved, but because of engineering barriers, they also happen to do the best job out there right now.


I would honestly kill to get in the shop with you and have you deal with the engineering end while I try to optimize the column. While I'm sure your rig is amazing, I think the sky is the limit with this technology applied to cannabis processing--we've barely scratched the surface in terms of what can be accomplished here.

 

[Graywolf]

For this purpose a wider and shorter column (subject to optimization) would be better in terms of solvent required for complete column extraction.

Despite the math, the results fly in the face of our practical experimentation. Our yield was higher from a 1" tube, than a 1 1/2" tube.

Removing the material and examining under a microscope revealed that the flow channeled and missed more trichomes heads in the larger diameter column, especially towards the injection end.

True story that soaking works better and is less sensitve to column ID. A thermos, Terpenator, or Lil Terp both get higher yield than a single pass column.

If you are in the area, by all means swing by for tea and crumpets!

 

[tattoojim]

Despite the math, the results fly in the face of our practical experimentation. Our yield was higher from a 1" tube, than a 1 1/2" tube.

Removing the material and examining under a microscope revealed that the flow channeled and missed more trichomes heads in the larger diameter column, especially towards the injection end.

True story that soaking works better and is less sensitve to column ID. A thermos, Terpenator, or Lil Terp both get higher yield than a single pass column.

If you are in the area, by all means swing by for tea and crumpets!

tea and crumpets with graywolf...an extractors dream :D

 

[squiggly]

Despite the math, the results fly in the face of our practical experimentation. Our yield was higher from a 1" tube, than a 1 1/2" tube.

Removing the material and examining under a microscope revealed that the flow channeled and missed more trichomes heads in the larger diameter column, especially towards the injection end.

True story that soaking works better and is less sensitve to column ID. A thermos, Terpenator, or Lil Terp both get higher yield than a single pass column.

If you are in the area, by all means swing by for tea and crumpets!

Yes, the channeling is the issue to be sure--but this is caused by many factors (perhaps the least of which is the diameter of the column--although this does have an effect under these specific circumstances due to pressure concerns and instability of flow).

To my mind, the best methodology would be to combat the channeling by different methods (such as splitting I mentioned above, tighter packing, or--most importantly--modulation of particle size).

Other factors which are important here:

1. Flow rate.

2. Constancy of flow rate.

3. Solvent delivery apparatus: Is it one hole of a significantly smaller diameter than the column delivering the solvent? If so this is a huge problem--and the most likely culprit behind channeling. This is why, to my mind, hexane is the best choice for a solvent. For no reason other than it is a liquid. This type of extraction is meant for a solvent in the liquid phase--not one which is rapidly interconverting between phases during its pass through the column. This is all but guaranteed to cause channeling. For lack of a better way to say it, it's just not the correct way to do this--that is why your terpenator is so badass, it's allowing proper contact with the material. In a sentence, using butane doesn't allow fine control over #2 at atmospheric pressure, and that is going to cause channeling (and the terpenator is a soak correct--so no channeling there).


Discussing which is the best method by which to extract with butane at atmospheric pressure is really counter-intuitive. The answer is that the best method is not to do this at all. There is almost no opportunity to control either flow rate or injection geometry (I can't think of a better way to say that--I'm sure I need an engineering word that I don't know).

The addition of sand in "splitting" helps by reducing channeling through uniform particle size, and this ensures that as solvent leaves the sand layer--it will do so along the entire area of the column (i.e. flow being directed which matches the diameter of the column--rather than a single hole).

A good practice would be to pack the top of a column with sand or silica anyway to achieve this effect at the initial injection point.

I realize that isn't going to stop anyone--but I think if we're going to tackle these issues that we, as a community, should understand them.

In short, it's not failing to work necessarily because of the diameter of the tube--although if we restrict ourselves in this area we can get "better" results. However, better isn't best--and in this case it can't even be classified as proper.

 

[dirk d]

tea and crumpets with graywolf...an extractors dream :D

be careful what you ask for lol one hit of graywolf's oil and you'll be feeling it for about 7 hours lol Thanks Graywolf! lol definitely the tastiest and strongest oil i ever had the pleasure of trying lol

 

[jump]

True story that soaking works better and is less sensitve to column ID. A thermos, Terpenator, or Lil Terp both get higher yield than a single pass column.

Considering the simplicity, accessibility and safety I give my vote for the thermos.

 

[squiggly]

Considering the simplicity, accessibility and safety I give my vote for the thermos.

I agree for home-based projects and personal supply.

I even agree if you have the facilities to carry out such a process in bulk.

However, as it goes to the science--I think simplicity is not always the most interesting of answers. As I've stated I believe this science/technology has implications for MJ processing far into the future, and that we have just barely scratched the surface in terms of what is possible.

Even if bulk processing and extraction is done ultimately in a giant thermos method--the moment you want to purify the sample you're going to be back to a column, and Van Deemter equation will haunt you still.

Best not to dance around the complexity in my opinion--and instead face the challenge head on.

As far as what works best and is most reliable, I fully agree the thermos method is where its at.

 

[Graywolf]

Yes, the channeling is the issue to be sure--but this is caused by many factors (perhaps the least of which is the diameter of the column--although this does have an effect under these specific circumstances due to pressure concerns and instability of flow).

To my mind, the best methodology would be to combat the channeling by different methods (such as splitting I mentioned above, tighter packing, or--most importantly--modulation of particle size).

Other factors which are important here:

1. Flow rate.

2. Constancy of flow rate.

3. Solvent delivery apparatus: Is it one hole of a significantly smaller diameter than the column delivering the solvent? If so this is a huge problem--and the most likely culprit behind channeling. This is why, to my mind, hexane is the best choice for a solvent. For no reason other than it is a liquid. This type of extraction is meant for a solvent in the liquid phase--not one which is rapidly interconverting between phases during its pass through the column. This is all but guaranteed to cause channeling. For lack of a better way to say it, it's just not the correct way to do this--that is why your terpenator is so badass, it's allowing proper contact with the material. In a sentence, using butane doesn't allow fine control over #2 at atmospheric pressure, and that is going to cause channeling (and the terpenator is a soak correct--so no channeling there).


Discussing which is the best method by which to extract with butane at atmospheric pressure is really counter-intuitive. The answer is that the best method is not to do this at all. There is almost no opportunity to control either flow rate or injection geometry (I can't think of a better way to say that--I'm sure I need an engineering word that I don't know).

The addition of sand in "splitting" helps by reducing channeling through uniform particle size, and this ensures that as solvent leaves the sand layer--it will do so along the entire area of the column (i.e. flow being directed which matches the diameter of the column--rather than a single hole).

A good practice would be to pack the top of a column with sand or silica anyway to achieve this effect at the initial injection point.

I realize that isn't going to stop anyone--but I think if we're going to tackle these issues that we, as a community, should understand them.

In short, it's not failing to work necessarily because of the diameter of the tube--although if we restrict ourselves in this area we can get "better" results. However, better isn't best--and in this case it can't even be classified as proper.

You can also reduce channeling by packing a couple of wadded up coffee filters in the injection end of the column.

I third that a thermos is the most efficient method, at the price. Especially if you score thermoses for $15 from your local Goodwill, like I do.

 

[jump]

Injection end always gets fresh solvent, and output end always gets saturated.

 

[squiggly]

Injection end always gets fresh solvent, and output end always gets saturated.

This is why knowing about what you're extracting and your expected yields as well as relevant solubility constants if you want to do this as an industrial process.

You can avoid efficiency loss by modulating column length or adjusting flow rate--but obviously that isn't happening with butanes because its going into gas phase and such with a blast-through technique.

 

[Graywolf]

This is why knowing about what you're extracting and your expected yields as well as relevant solubility constants if you want to do this as an industrial process.

You can avoid efficiency loss by modulating column length or adjusting flow rate--but obviously that isn't happening with butanes because its going into gas phase and such with a blast-through technique.

You will also need a diffuser at the injection end to hope to touch the material on both sides of the injection orifice, where the inefficiency is greatest.