OTSS When To Cap, Request for Pictures


#1

A very common question about the OTSS Tekis when to cap the jar during step 7, after cold crashing while letting some solvent evaporate.

Step 7: After that let jars sit at room temp for an hour or 2, then tighten the lids all the way and do another couple hours at room temp. (This is only to ensure enough solvent has evaporated so you can tighten the lid)


Here are a collection of answers from the OP:

-It varies. You tend to lose a bit of solvent while in the freezer. But we like to have around 2/3rds when we start the crashing phase. And 1/3rd or less when we tighten the lid

-For the room temp phase its just to ensure their isnt to much solvent present. If its already down to 1/3 or less then you can skip that. Just leave it now and youll get crystal growth.

And when I asked @Otscc about this he said, “When you tilt the jar, a slight film should coat the wall then slowly streak down” So not too runny, not too thick…


I’m hoping that we can provide a collection of pictures and user inputs on this post of what people’s jars/miners look like as they come out of the cold crash, then again right as they get capped.

Thanks for the help! Everyone of you is helping make the community and the world a better place with open source hash knowledge!


Ethanol crystals
Only The Strong sauce tek
#2

good thing the C1D1 freezers are right next to the Ball mason jars at Walmart.

Contradicting… (also, not true if you run a propane system)

I think if this tek wants any real credibility or proof of repeat-ability, it’s gonna need to give a little more hard data… some pretty big holes in it…

So, you want to pour with 1 or 2 lbs of solvent left, right? How much oil is in this solvent, or how much biomass did it come from? That seems like a pretty big factor . Some of my friends pour 50 lbs of oil each run, just saying…

What are units of measurement anyways? 1/3 of a jar? 1/3 of the solution is solvent? 1/3 of the solution is THCa? 1/3 of me is an asshole, 1/3 of me lost my mind, and 1/3 of me just wants to help?


#3

Ok so i get what your saying, here easiest way I know to put it, blast in big pan pour immediately into jars filling up or blast directly into jars, this is your starting point, Mark if you have to,… when it’s down to 2/3 of all the liquid thats in the jars, then start the cold crash to gather thcA on bottom,

this is only bc the crystals will not precipitate out if to much solvent is present

Next once you bring the jar out of cryo and let sit out following SOP , he’s saying don’t screw the lid on until only 1/3rd liquid left from your starting point of full jar(only use your starting point of 3/3 with fully saturated nothing evaprated yet, I hope this helps

****Also for some others,
Yes your cold crash crystals are supposed to melt when you pull out lid and place on heat. ****

Btw you don’t have to use heat, you can use 65f and make the crash time more than double slowed down, and you’ll get even bigger crystals, but takes more than twice as long, I get great results in oven or on cabinet for a longer, slower evaporation… Good luck


#4

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:


#5

well the tek has variables. just like any other. but you’re right some things could be dialed in more. and the credibility of it is the fact that it’s being done by over a dozen extractors. with great and repeatable results. or maybe the 3 awards it took over 4/20 week end. and it’s pretty simple not many people are having trouble with that part. its 1/3 of the jar still has solute in it. and 2/3 are empty. if you need help you can ask nicely. if you’re just here to try and pick something apart that I put out for free. then I guess that adds one more to the list. if you have your own tek that works better. then please feel free to share the community would appreciate it. otherwise there is no need for negativity. and btw propane boils at -43.6°f. dry ice isopropyl slurry gets down to around -110°f. so yes still true with propane.


#7

I will get pictures soon. I lost all photos in my phone.


#8

I hope the trophies were huge.

I could give a fuck how many awards it took. I’m not trying to avoid giving credit where it is due, but I have an issue with saying this tek is repeatable, when the majority of the steps do not describe what is happening to the extract, nor why it is happening. After talking to just about anyone who follows your tek, most of them couldn’t even crystallize honey if they tried. The issue there is on the teacher, not the student. This sort of issue is pretty prevalent in public education systems.

You know how many guitarists I know that can draw out the “circle of fifths” in mere seconds, but couldn’t even locate the notes on the fret board?

I just have trouble giving that much credit to the tek when it does such a poor job of “application” of the chemistry, and is more of a “monkey-see-monkey-do” without explanation of the theory. In my eyes, it is not repeatable. In my eyes “repeatable” is a little bit more than “Ooh look, I got crystals and sauce from that run!”

That being said, I do find your tek a great source of inspiration and some pretty heavy hints for those trying to learn.


#9

If you’re not here to have science picked apart, this may not be the forum for you, my friend. If it’s just some shit you posted for free and isn’t meant to be held accountable, then why boast awards? I don’t get it. You want credit when the awards and IG hype come, but as soon as credibility is questioned (justified or not), it becomes “some shit I put out for free”. Got it.

I may have missed the part where you said to put dry ice in the -20 freezer. Still some flaw there, however. The solution would have to be brought to the freezer already chilled and with no vapor pressure present.
What about the accumulation of small amounts of propane/butane in the freezer. Just let it build up over the year, what’s the worst that can happen? Or is it not accumulating? In that case, it is evaporating in the freezer. Sounds fun and safe.


#10

I get my C1D1 freezers from @Sidco_Cat


#11

Ive gotten hundreds of people showing me the crystals they grew with this Tek. If you can’t repeat it maybe the onerous is on you? If you aren’t happy with the vagueness of the Tek, why not add the data and repost with it “complete”?


#12

A) I can repeat it. I’ve seen people crystallize by following exactly the steps provided in the original post. I never said otherwise, did I?

B) Are you suggesting that I’m at some fault for reading and reviewing something without providing the same medium of information with better data? That’s not how the world works. . . . . I think?

C) I wouldn’t consider any single study “complete,” but I do plan on adding some data myself. Unfortunately (or not, idk), it’s not at the top of my to-do list, as much as I honestly would like it to be.

D) I addressed the vagueness of the tek also to promote such clarification/edits/updates from the original poster or anyone who may chose to provide their own data.


#13

A) You said twice the Tek is NOT repeatable

  1. “I have an issue with saying this tek is repeatable, when the majority of the steps do not describe what is happening to the extract, nor why it is happening. After talking to just about anyone who follows your tek, most of them couldn’t even crystallize honey if they tried.”

  2. I think if this tek wants any real credibility or proof of repeat-ability, it’s gonna need to give a little more hard data… some pretty big holes in it…

Which is the whole point of this post, to acquire some user data on a very specific point. If you have issues with the Tek, please take them to the OP for the Tek. I appreciate the criticism, always, for all aspects of this site. By keeping them in the appropriate categories we prevent muddying up posts, like this one has now become


#14

I too had wondered what was going on chemically during this tek. From my knowledge of chemistry and analysing the steps in the tek this is currently my best understanding of the chemical processes occuring:

Our solution from the extractor consists of butane, canabinoids, terpenes and most likely some contaminants like fats and waxes. We force the canabinoids to crash out of solution by reducing their solubility in the solvent. This is achieved by reducing temp significantly (cryo temps), which will also force out some contaminants (freeze precipitation). This step is done with an abundance of butane as having our target molecules dissolved in solution gives them maximum mobility, thus making it easier for them to rearranged as they are forced into their solid state. However too much solvent will prevent crashing as even at reduced solubility (cryo temps) if there is a large enough volume of solvent it can still completely dissolve the canabinoids. At this point we have forced the majority of the canabinoids to sperate themselves from our terpenes and solvent. Now we bring the temperature of our mixture up to room temperature and allow the majority of the butane to boil off. This should be done carefully to not disturb the canabinoids we have gathered at the bottom of our vessel. Some of the canabinoids will redissolve into solution as it warms up but there should still be a considerable amount that remains seperated from our terpenes and solvent. As we allowed the butane to evapourate, we were increasing the saturation of canabinoids until the solvent became super saturated and hence could not redissolve all of the canabinoids that we freeze precipitated. At this point the canabinoids will start stacking into a lattice formation, which is sped up by the formation of the ‘seed layer’. This is the layer of canabinoids we collected at the bottom of the vessel and did not allow to fully redissolve. By slightly heating our solution at this point we are increasing the mobility of our molecules and allowing the canabinoids to orgaise themselves faster, which will result in faster but less ordered crystal growth. By keeping the solution cool during the crystal growth the mobility of our target molecules is greatly reduced and hence growth will be very slow but highly ordered resulting is large crystal formations.

My theory is that if people have a basic understanding of what is happening chemically at each stage and why they are going through these stages they will be more equipped to make adjustments to the tek to suit their specific situation. It is a really simple and great tek and I am so grateful that @Otscc gifted this knowledge to the world! Also very grateful for @Future starting this forum that is in a league of its own compared to any other cannabis forum!


#15

Maybe I did digress a bit from the topic’s title.
And I guess I should have stated that I find that the most important aspects of this tek are not repeatable (namely saturation levels, evaporation rate, units of measurement), although some the written steps may be repeatable. It’s not too far a digression, still. I find it tedious and slightly difficult to compartmentalize the issues, as I observed them in this thread.


#16

So now we are back to where we started.

Do you have any data points for those 3 areas?

  1. Saturation levels
  2. Evaporation rate
  3. Units of Measurement

?


#17

I will share some recorded data soon, it isn’t organized and hardly recorded. I didn’t know I’m obligated to provide data in order to review someone else’s.


#18

Saturation levels grabbed my attention. Do you think it is possible to titrate the solution before hand to attain it’s saturation? Perhaps small scale done with some type of indicating reagent to determine the bulk of the solutions saturation. This would allow the technician to either dilute or concentrate indside the CLS before pouring out into the Dimond miner.


#19

can’t you get a decent proxy using potency tested input?

known input weight of known potency in a known volume of solvent would seem pretty close to sufficient.

the desired solvent/solute ratio can be bootstrapped by a single user proficient in the art with the ability to potency test input.

eg if I used 10kg of 10% THC biomass and jarred at 2liters (used 2 1/2 gal jars). and knew from experience that this was the right ratio. upon success, we could infer that jarring at 50% cannabinoids was an appropriate starting point.

Looking at the spread on the reported successful ratios from different practitioners would give us the ability to refine that bootstrap value.

no @hambread you are not obligated to submit data… but the more who do, the better this works.

best implementation would seem to require etching graduations on the inside of the CLS.


#20


I put around 400ml of mother solution in 24oz. Jars let evaporate till around 180ml. Then tighten. If your jar is gonna pop it’s gonna do it in the first couple hours. If you babysit it. You can swap lids/rim and still not lose too much solvent to evap. So if you can stay near your jar at first.


#21