No we have 3 ethos and one Ares already working and we are very happy with them . however our building expansion permits are taking longer than expected on city level
2 Likes
That statement is false , units are fine with fire department regulations depending on the county obviously it’s up to your fire marshal . All capna units have proper Kirkland reports .
2 Likes
Best unit for the money hands down
1 Like
Doesnt matter what the county says, state regulations are what count and its not peer reviewed. Have fun with that. Im talking from experience you want me to post the lab? The ethos is a joke
C1d1 or c1d2 equipment must be peer reviewed and CERTIFIED C1D1 or C1D2. They cant get this machine to pass PSI review because the user comes in contact with the solvent because theres no centrifuge… i know this because i talked to PSI personally about this so yea. Your labs going to have problems when the state inspects your facility and its not up to code because you have uncertified equipment. I dealt with this in adelanto where the officials let you do whatever the fuck you want because they want money. That lab is now shut down and rebuilding after spending 1.5 mil to get going. Read up on c1d1, c1d2 is going bye bye so
2 Likes
That wont work here in CA. You cannot have your material dripping when you remove it from the extractor, like i said the user cant come in contact with the solvent. Theres a reason the CUP 30 pumps the solvent out then spins it dry.
2 Likes
Capna should re-design the ethos with a built-in centrifuge is what I was getting at.
Like at the end of the regular ethos extraction process a self locking centrifuge slams down and then a spin process takes place.
1 Like
I like that rule.
Obviously you are biased and I don’t work for capna so I won’t be defending their product , I’ve seen this running in lab that passed state inspection and everyone can see it in capna manufacturing lab up north clearly working every day . This is like 3-4th generation machine and they are California based company . I do agree on psi comment spoke to the same people in Colorado and … who cares there is plenty of other companies to do reports . Not everyone needs to use this in Cali but everyone wants to skip winterization process . I believe they are working on Kirkland report currently .
I guess I’m bias from lots of experience dealing with people like you lol The bottom line is they cant get it peer reviewed by anyone. Show me the lab that passed state inspection with these in there in CA, its like home boy above said he had “permitting troubles” im sure its because its not peer reviewed. Im not bias I’ve dealt with people like you trying to sell uncertified equipment because they messed up and didn’t know regulations and bought it by mistake. The state shut the lab in adelanto down because of this machine and an uncertified ecochyll, you can make all the claims you want about being able to use these. I know the truth because I’ve dealt with this.
2 Likes
C1d1 for ethanol? That seems crazy.
It seems to me that this is all bullshit…every county in every state is different and nobody has blown a lab up yet
1 Like
Interested in speaking with you about these two pieces of equipment.
Cali is about to change its laws too. C1d2 was created when people were doing co2 oil and winterizing it, now that people are holding 500+ gallons of ethanol for extraction they want anything over a certain limit c1d1. Doesnt matter the solvent type. This comes from one of the head fire inspector for the state. Shits gonna get real
1 Like
Feel free to text or call me at 714-912-6546. Im free for any questions about the equipment.
so who that has a license is operating these machines? I have yet to find anything showing these machines are worth the money.
1 Like
Hey man, very interested if still available, get at me. thanks.
The type of solvent being used doesn’t pertain to the classification of a room. The presence of flammable vapors is the biggest factor.
1 Like
Yes it 100% does, c1d1 or c1d2 is based on the flash point / boiling point of the solvent that’s why pentane and below are c1d1 and hexane and above are c1d2
1 Like
This is categorically false. C1d1 and 2 are area classifications based on the presence of flammable vapor. You are thinking in a canna-centric frame of mind. 99% of manufacturing facilities do not consider solvent type. Maybe you are thinking of IBC H locations?