There are a few ways this can be done. For one, we took the inlet temperature, outlet temperature, volume moved, and the density of what was moved. This calculation comes in around 32kw on the Behemoth:
But you could also use the volume of solvent in the system and how long it took to get to a set temperature… In this case we are looking at the amount of heat removed from the solvent in Kj/Kg and converting to Kw:
The baseline price is under $100k for both sizes of our thermal control system and is included in the price with our extraction systems. We did not up-charge for the tech.
Yeah, it was not something I expected to work but tried it anyhow. I can see how it has been overlooked so long, in theory it shouldn’t work (so why try?), but in fact there is a way. Patent Pending.
I think this is the 5th time responding to this comment from you…
It is likely the most simple thing to understand. Ever use a short path? Perhaps a lighter on a cold day? Upon shaking the lighter more liquid hits the wall thereby creating more vapor, no different than the stirbar in a spd, upon increasing the speed, more vapors are generated due to the physical action within the system. Without the use of additional physical surface area, more vapor is generated from the minimal surface area touching more liquid.
Why the WFE is better is easy, crude is a thick viscous product that can be easily damaged by heat (decarb). The very moment solvent with crude enters our GD1, it begins to thicken rapidly. The use of a WFE enables a shorter recovery distance with a lower solvent retention than a FFE. Not to mention cleaning clogged tubes is no fun and you might not ever know its clogged because the liquid will take the path of least resistance around it.
Anyone with any real lab experience who has used various forms of recovery knows the WFE is by far the fastest method when properly sized. More solvent is recovered with less residence time than FFE’s.
It is alive and well - a standard part of our operating procedure and will always be a part of our procedure. HPHE™ helps to defeat solvent channeling by forcing solvent into all reaches of the column. Due to HPHE™ we increase the solubility of terpenes and other volatile molecules. With HPHE™ we have zero need for atomization devices as our solvent is self-atomized to the fullest extent. Thanks to HPHE™, we have reduced the amount of consumables needed to run our system; no wasteful nitrogen has ever been purchased by any of our clients ever. Our HPHE™ pending patent tech also solves many other problems experienced in the industry, including MAQ limits.
The class is more focused on our refrigeration tech than the other stuff but it will all be discussed in great detail then.
Simply by saying our marketing claims are BS doesn’t make it so… We have never once lied about our systems and what they can do. Everything we say it can do it does do. Just did a case study on our TCS.
What stinks the most is the amount of misinformation people believe themselves then try to push on others. We have had multiple of these back-and-forth’s and you always go silent after I respond then you pop up on a new post a couple months later screaming the same thing all over again. Shall we discuss superheat some more?
I can back everything up with math and proof of it working. We have multiple units in operation across the country. Some running cannabis, others running hemp. Our Behemoth model’s have each extracted over 100k lbs of bio. There are multiple Behemoths in operation. The tech is real & what I say is true.
This is the primary reason for the class, to simply prove our tech does in fact do everything we say it can do, but also to share with those interested our technologies, and how they help the operator with typical day to day challenges.
If you don’t believe us - then come see it for your self or shut up. These childish games are getting old.