30/80. It has a 10l reservoir and a 35l a min flow rate. They are making or do have one that is supposed to get to - 100. Once that happens, I’m going to buy one. Then I’ll two stage dewax. I have gotten her down to -81, once. And it was like 20 degrees Fahrenheit outside, where she was operating. Don’t ask.
3 Likes
You are correct. I’m wondering if added pressure will help the coaugulation process. Im trying to get a “fuller dewax” more than I am trying to get a quick dewax. But I suppose it could somewhat go hand in hand.
2 Likes
Sorry about not replying for so long. I figured the thread went dead and haven’t been back in a bit.
I have a valve between my dewaxing column and my Filter plates. I use a light nitro push to assist the solvent moving from dewax to collection. My main question is, Would a -10psi, 3hr dewax process have different results than a +50psi, 3hr dewax process?
1 Like
My assumption to this would be, while under pressure, your solvent requires less cold to keep it a liquid. As soon as you remove the pressure, the solvent needs more cold in order to stay a liquid. So your slurry would all of a sudden go from as cold as it could be, to chilling. Causing the reaction in your slurry.
4 Likes
Thanks, that actually makes sense, it had me stumped…
I can say with it under pressure half of my dewax, it was the least amount of fats and waxes I’ve had in my dewaxer, so pressure might actually make it less effective.
I’m wondering if the inconstant pressure inside your column, may have had an effect on that. You can crash fats out in a jar, if you stir the jar the fats dissolve again. If your solvent was also bubbling, you could have re dissolved some fats. (Just a thought)
I have a possible answer. I must point out that this thread is supposed to be about in-line de-waxing, not column chromatography, although that is certainly one method to de-wax.
If you are de-waxing by dilution in EtOH, lowering the temp, then filtering out the wax, pressure is irrelevant, providing you can get the solution through the filter.
One needs vacuum if using a buchner set-up, yet the solution being de-waxed is atm pressure.
Vacuum can be used for liquid phase transport from one vessel to another, but is not the only way, so your question is a bit difficult to interpret.
What is your modus-operandi?
We are talking about inline single solvent dewaxing here.
1 Like
So i winterize and deeply de wax my extraxt inline by dropping to negative 80 and having and additional filter plate downstream under my spool between my collection vessel packed with activated carbon and always get the brightest yellow terpscauce with rocksalt sized diamonds
2 Likes
Have you noticed a drop in yield from using the ac? It seems the prevailing opinion is that ac has an affinity for this.
Most definitely but i run all my crude , though calling terpscauce crude seems odd to me, into distillate and one of the things ive noticed is the speed that it reduces and how little it boils coming up to the initial thc fraction then pops hard
1 Like
If you’re going to be running close to 45 lbs solvent i’d go with the one 8x48 dewaxer if you can afford an extra hour or two to sit. Even though it sounds easy enough to clean another spool everytime I add one to my system it’s like theres another hour dedicated to it lmao
I just recently picked up an 8x50 to dewax in and replace a 6x48. Once I get a feel for it I will probably let it sit for 3-4 hours. (currently do 2-3 on 6" dewax). I run dry ice and acetone which is pretty affordable where I am at - you’ll easily go through 50lbs with the 8" in a 2-3 hr sit
what are you guys finding to be sufficient for post dewaxing filtration to collect the crud? setting up a new 5lb system curious as to if ill need more than one filter site after the dewax chamber to do the trick.
If your filtering for distillation purposes i run 2 layers the first one in a coffee filter in a buchner funnel i do a soupy mix of celite then throw a coffee filter ontop of that and fill half way with activated carbon ive saturated in a vacuum chamner with denatured alchohol to really open pore passageways by removing air pockets, ontop of the activated carbon i put one last coffee filter as a fluid stream stop. An issue ive seen people have is pouring theyre solvent directly onto filter media ie carbon , celite , whatever and the stream just destroys the patty so having a filter to break up your liquid stream and allow for a slow seep of fluid which ive found encourages more contact time with activated carbon. My celite filter cakes are 3 to 4 mm thick and i get about 500 mls of good flow before i gotta pull my filters and replace the celite. I dont think sufficient is really good enough i want to know ive scrubbed it of everything. I have some oxalic acid coming in that im going to add in my 3rd rd of filtration between the activated carbon and celite hopefully actually breaking down the remainging triglycerides and pigment components of the extract. Most filter media in extraxtion is an adsorbent and doesnt actually break down any of the pigment or particles it just grabs onto it through it haggard and rough surface. Also part of the oxalic acid expirement is related to converting cannabiniods into delta 9 thc through a ph solution of 2 theres a couple obscure articles on that floating around but who knows only a COA
1 Like
Sorry if this is our of no where but i just noticed this comment. are you saying that because live material is about 70-75% water that your solvent to material ration would be less?
Ive been keeping the same ratios between live and dry material. i do about 25lbs of solvent for my 4x48 tubes filled with 4k of material.
I run my system in the manor origional asked about. I run a warm butane tank into a coil covered in dry ice, i ice my collection pot for an hour and my columns for 30 mins. I run about 6-8lbs solvent per pound. I believe the theory is in the polarity of the solvent, the atmosphere and the compounds being extracted. It helps to run like this to stop things like chlorophyll and water from being extracted, even some fats and lipids. But, most of the waxes will take time to coagulate from the mixture and at that point can be quite frustrating when clogging occures during inline dewax. Ive pulled some good yields but i average typically 60-70grams per lb of material. I run my product into distillate after this method and can certainly confirm a solid loss from waxes but i would say it isnt to substaintial. My overall return from my wax to distillate is about 70%. Not sure how that compares across the board.
2 Likes
so true bro
1 Like
I still have this problem, to this day. It’s even worse than before.
for the longest time all I got were the grow teams fuckups…
seriously?
You think I’m Rumpelstiltskin?
HTF do you expect me to turn that into gold?
2 Likes
Well cleaning the fats out of your column every run is a PITA .