Illuminated Extractors x ChemTek Workshop FEB 26-27

[Killa12345]

Whatever dont show up on your criminal record is “fun” not “trouble”…

[Sidco_Cat]

Sounds like there will be plenty of fun on both sides of the border!

Is anyone here registered for the class? I’d love to connect.

[BigM]

Pretty sure I’m going to be there for one of the classes, and the party too. Haven’t registered yet, and still have to plan flights and hotel, but I’ll be there.

[Boomtownpharms]

Someone bring me as your plus one.

[Greenleafpro]

I was hoping you’d ask me to the dance.

[TheFattyMcCoy]

Please tell me it’s in OB???!!

[TheFattyMcCoy]

So we got to go to Honk Kong!!!

[Killa12345]

@TheFattyMcCoy

we got to go to Honk Kong!!!

Someone been told the itinerary I see. Lol.

[SaucBoss]

I’m also interested if there will be a virtual attendance option. Any updates on this?

[Sidco_Cat]

I’ll find out!

[Sidco_Cat]

If you’re interested in streaming the class or Trevor attendance, please email JD@illuminatedextractors.com.

[Darrenjaydirect]

Ill be there! Got tickets for me and a plus one. Going to be sick. Learning from some of the best. My diamond game is so outdated. Hoping to get caught up to the straight out best practices available in 2022.

See yall thur!

[BigM]

You can get in to the after party for $20 if you don’t attend the class. Pretty sure there’s no glg needed.

[Sidco_Cat]

It’s getting better all the time! Now 25% off for Good Life Gang members!

They’re is still some room on both days. I’ll update as things sell out.

[Tech1145]

@Zack_illuminated

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.

Well I keep posting it because it’s a hilariously false claim and you never actually answer the question or back up your statements with concrete data.

Your examples don’t really fit this argument because both a FFE and WFE are already inherently using all the available internal surface area as evaporative surface area. It’s a huge part of their design. With the lighter example you are basically saying, “increasing evaporative surface area increases evaporation”. This is no surprise. There is no spare, unused surface area to use in a WFE (or FFE) like in your lighter example.

Stirring in an SPD during boiling has several effects. You agitate the vapor above the liquid pool, facilitating increased vapor diffusion away from the surface. Stirring also ensures the surface temperature is close to the bulk temperature which is important because evaporation causes the liquid’s surface to cool more than the interior bulk and the cooler surface layer will evaporate slowly. By stirring you replenish the surface layer with warm liquid.

These advantages of agitation can be applied to the thin films in a WFE or FFE but they definitely do not boost the “effective surface area” of a WFE above that of an FFE of the same length/diameter.

@Zack_illuminated

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.

Any actual test data to show a WFE enables shorter distance vs FFE for the same amount of input crude?

I agree that WFE are better for thermally sensitive products because they achieve very thin films.

The idea of crude being “easily damaged by heat” is relative. When removing butane/propane from recently extracted crude we are not even close to temperatures that would damage or decarb it.
That’s why an evaporator design (WFE) that sacrifices a huge amount of internal surface area to facilitate addition of a wiper basket to ensure the thinnest film possible is completely unnecessary and overcomplicated.

I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of anyone having issues with the tubes clogging in their FFE during operation. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen but I’m highly doubtful. That sounds like a design problem with the internal tube diameter being to narrow or something.

Of course, when you go to distill the cannabinoids out of the crude you are much closer to thermal damaging temps. In this case you would want to cut a tight fraction at the lowest temp possible so sacrificing internal surface area for the wiper basket and getting thinner films is exactly what you want to do.

This is why WFE, especially the short path variety, generally operate under high vacuum, because being as careful and gentle with the feedstock is the main idea it’s designed around. We don’t need to be anywhere near that careful and gentle for bulk solvent removal in BHO.

The complication and cost of the rotary joint is a huge detractor of the WFE design.

There are lots of people with lab experience in the cannabis industry at this point and it seems most of them use FFE for bulk solvent recovery. Are they all just stupid in your opinion? I would have to imagine that for a WFE to get into the same ballpark as a FFE for bulk solvent removal it would have to be “properly sized” by being much much larger than the FFE.

[Tech1145]

@Zack_illuminated

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.

Haha, at first I thought you were making a little joke with all the little TM symbols, but then I remembered who I was talking to and I know you are dead serious.

Is HPHE what you call your patent on hot looping?

Any data to support the bit about “Due to HPHE we increase the solubility of terpenes and other volatile molecules.”?

It all sounds fancy and great but where is the proof that things actually happen the way you say they do?

You can’t just pop up and say these things out of nowhere. Is there a side-by-side experiment showing a “regular” extractor leaving things behind and your machine picking them up with your fancy atomized solvent?

Here are some of your past quotes regarding HPHE:

@Zack_illuminated

We have completely removed the need for a ratio style of extraction. We use a phase transient solvent state to which takes on its own unique properties not seen with a pure liquid solvent. We invented a new technology to get away from the old regurgitated techniques.

@Zack_illuminated

We utilize the solvent in way never before thought of in ways which increase the standard efficiency ten fold. We literally got rid of the ratio style of extraction and use a 1:1 bio to solvent. No more the old coffee maker style extraction but instead the more complicated espresso!

@Zack_illuminated

It is likely the most difficult way to operate and extract in the world, but if understood, is roughly 50 to 200 times (or more depending on your ratio) more efficient than the traditional technique. We have a deep understanding of the actual physics behind it’s operation and have utilized this as much as possible within our design!

@Zack_illuminated

We use a Phase Transient solvent that is not a solid liquid nor gas nor supercritical, but rather a mixture of vapor and liquid, also known as a saturated vapor.

Care to explain what you actually mean by phase transient? (you better start trademarking that one or I’m stealing it.)

Any proof or data to substantiate your claims about “increase standard efficiency ten fold” or “50 to 200 times more efficient then the traditional technique”?

The last quote of yours is another little marketing BS gem. Please tell me more about the new state of matter you have discovered.

Haha, “not solid liquid nor gas nor supercritical”.

Is it a plasma? Bose-Einstein condensate?

You really love telling other people you’ve invented things, don’t you. Regardless of whether or not you actually have invented anything, the fact that you love saying it so much just makes me think about that South Park episode even more.

@Zack_illuminated

These childish games are getting old.

Right back at ya my man.

Put up or shut up.

You are the one making claims. The burden of proof is on you.

You can’t just come on here and make threads titled “Most advanced extraction system on the market” and repeatedly tote yourself as some type of genius inventor guy then not show up with some serious proof.

[Tech1145]

@Future

@Dred_pirate just taught a class entirely revolving around information that can be found for free here, on this forum.

Imagine being mad that some people learn better hands on and are willing to fairly compensate someone like @Dred_pirate for his time to come hold their hand

Easy big killer.

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of a forum founded in the spirit of open-sourced knowledge sharing being used to advertise closed-source, private classes.

I generally have no problem with the classes themselves or the people teaching them. And to be honest, I don’t even really give a care about them being advertised here on the forum, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy this time because I think this guy is at least partly a charlatan.

The part about me being mad that some people learn better hands on and them being willing to pay is a strawman argument of your own mind’s invention.

@Waxplug1

You’re asking questions that will be covered in the class more thoroughly. I’ll give you a free ticket to come see it in action if ur interested

Hey man because this is text over the internet I can’t exactly tell if you’re being sarcastic with this offer or not, but I’m leaning towards no because you are a standup member of the forum.

I really appreciate the offer but I just wouldn’t feel right from a moral standpoint being there for free if others paid $1000.

Thanks anyways.

[Future]

Oh ya, you don’t sound mad at all

[Pupparoo]

@Tech1145

really appreciate the offer but I just wouldn’t feel right from a moral standpoint being there for free if others paid $1000.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

You are all talk.

Lol

[Zack_illuminated]

@Tech1145

You are the one making claims. The burden of proof is on you.

I will be at the class, but will you bother to show up? You have been offered a free ticket to come see it for yourself, live first hand as your proof.

Honestly I don’t expect you to show up but you are more than welcome to come and see everything you are claiming to be bs. Your response is only an excuse to keep saying it is false: can’t be proven wrong if you never see it.

Might as well put your hands over your eyes and ears and scream la la la la I can’t hear you.