Thank you brother. That’s exactly the answer I was looking for.
2 Likes
Or maybe packing with carbon pellets to remove odor? 
1 Like
Here’s another question for the powers that know more than I. I plan on running an aftermarket temperature data logging system with one of the temp. probes being taped to the bottom of the boiling flask and the mantel’s temp being regulated by a variac . My question is do I really need a temp probe in the crude or can I run a single neck boiling flask as my system will utilize 250ml-500ml boiling flask with no plans of adding crude during the run.
You want both. Also, don’t tape to the bottom, just wedge it between the flask and the mantle, should be fine.
If you look at the temps I posted, you’ll see that there is a variance of about 100C between the mantle temp and the solution temp.
2 Likes
Yes I see the difference between mantel temp and solution temp. However most video’s on the subject talk about head temp being the most important and to be honest I’ve seen solution temps be in the 240 range head temp will be around 185-200 and your solution temp looked to be around 200 with a head temp around 185ish. So my thoughts were to eliminate that probe hole would eliminate yet another vacuum leak point. However I can also see the benefit of having another temp. reference point also damn decisions decisions
Hey everyone, got the lab results (minus the pesticide panel).
The crude I received from @CBDfarmer came out to 58.18% total available CBD (quite a bit lower than the COA he provided at 64%, but in the same ballpark and the discrepancy makes sense given the different analytical methods used) and 2.48% total THC.
We had a good bit of material left in the round bottom flask due to the power cutting out on us, so we tested that material as well. It came out to 11.43% CBD and 2.56% THC.
I had two body fractions, which came out to 72.48% CBD/1.99% THC and 71.65% CBD/3.90% THC, respectively.
So, from crude to distillate the total cannabinoids went from 65.66% available cannabinoids to 77.51% total cannabinoid. Is this in line with other people’s results for first pass?
I plan on running an additional crude run (added to the material left in the flask); then, I will combine all of our body fractions for a second pass. I will get results again and post here, hopefully this helps someone else out that is just starting!
3 Likes
@Thedawg 240 is really hot for the solution, to my knowledge. I was just following the GLG and Columbo labs SOPs for temps. Also, my vacuum was between 31 and 40 microns for the majority of my cannabinoids fraction, so I assume that contributed to me having lower temps. My goal was to keep my head temps between 180 and 190 and my solution temp below 210C.
Reflux was a good indicator of what was happening. If what I’m saying is inaccurate, please correct me!
4 Likes
That’s super interesting that your two body fractions tested so much differently for THC. What was your overall yield of distillate from the 650ml you charged your still with?
2 Likes
I hear about the 240 number being high. I would attribute that number to either a faulty pid reading or vacuum leaks. Thats the reason I’m looking for any advantages over vacuum hence getting rid of the temp probe opening in the boiling flask.
Here’s my thoughts about those Chinese mantels. I’m thinking their not very accurate which is the reason I’m going with the more expensive Glas-Col fabric mantel controlled by a Variac.
Honestly I should stop thinking about where to save on vacuum and finish my system and use a 2 neck boiling flask and see where I’m at.
Pretty low, 375 grams from 597 grams of crude; however, we left 222 grams behind (of which 11.23% was CBD and 2.56% THC), so we left about 31g of cannabinoid behind due to having to stop our run early. By my calculation we got 74.2% of our theoretical cannabinoid yield (based on the crude HPLC data) and a 62.8% overall yield by mass. Lots of room for improvement there. Had we completed the run, I expect our yield to have been 82% of theoretical cannabinoids, or 68% total yield by mass.
These numbers don’t line up perfectly and I think that has a lot to do with the fact that there is so much variance between tests (mainly sampling… I didn’t do a great job homogenizing before taking aliquots for testing). To my knowledge, the lab doesn’t run replicates, so the discrepancies are reasonably within error (i.e. 65.6% total cannabinoids vs 68%).
I sealed the flask with the remaining material and saved it in the fridge. We have ~400g of crude left, which I plan on adding to the flask in order to recover the remaining cannabinoid. I was expecting 70-75% potency on first pass though, so I’m just happy we are in that range. I hope to get >85% on second pass once I run this next crude and combine all of my body fractions.
I’ll keep updating this thread as things progress.
I’ve been vaping this stuff out of a ccell sample from iKrusher with <5% true terpenes terps… surprisingly good! No crystallizing yet, probably due to the presence of THC and the added terps.
Edit: for those more experienced, what types of yields do you get?
Edit 2: Pesticide panel came back clean today 
3 Likes
If strait forward distillation You Need none😀 Once your vacuum is good they come When they come a visual switch of flask and done don t recomend iT thou
I find the head probe the most important and that is Where i have iT placed
Espesially with hot Condenser visuals fail
I place a probe between flask and mantel
For My variac use Wich also has a digital volt meter
But all probes and meters are only usefull When vac depth is identical Wich is tough
Because calculating is nog so easy
A data logger for temp and vac of all probes is handy i can recomend the brand
Jumo once this is in place You have good refrance
But as i Said reflux is My measurement of heat administration and visuals for mains
Ramping the Condenser once in heads
If your vac is deep You can almost not.
Go wrong for this is not chemistry
1 Like
@Roguelab what’re you using for the hot condenser? The Sous vide rig failed for me at high temp towards the end, the fountain pump failed for us.
1 Like
I have several units
But one of the first was a souse vide with metal motor parts that i Placed a plug and play pid controller and an extra heat stick in and avocado oil as heat transfer fluid
We are lucky in this trade that temps may have 5 degree deviances without beeing punisched
2 Likes
Lab souse vides and deffenitly the old ones have these type of pumps made of metal they often don t go beyond 100C but a pid takes care of that cheap
And an aditional heat stick makes temp control. Easy When ramping to hot condensor tech for mains
2 Likes
You ever use avacado oil in roto water bath?
1 Like
Gah, that’s discouraging about the Sous vide. Did it just stop working? Or wouldn’t hold temp?
To avoid evaporation You mean ?
1 Like
As heat transfer fluid to take roto past 100c
1 Like
Question is is the roto made for temps that high ?
If iT is iT works with avocado or ricebran oil till 150
Both oils i preheat in a pan to make sure of there purity so No boil occures close to the temp i Wich to use them for
2 Likes
@coppertop the sous vide itself was fine, it easily held it at 195F - the issue is the aquarium pump stopped working after a few hours at that temp. We just manually siphoned the water through every few minutes to keep it hot.
@Roguelab how hot do you run the condenser during your mains?
2 Likes