Scientific 710 Hydraulic Column Packer / Unpacker clancy@scientific710.com

id like to bring up another thing thats been racking my brain since seeing these packers. So lets say you can get 50% more flower in a spool, wouldnt you need 50% more solvent to properly extract that material.

So wouldnt your extraction time increase by the same 50% and recovery as well. Where i can see the time saving is building and breaking down the extractor between runs. Packing less spools which equals a time saving… Ejecting and packing spools which are time savings. Even being able to run 50% more material in the same equipment is a equipment savings. BUT that brings up something new…

How many of us run equipement that can even process 50% more material. If we need more gas…wouldnt we need bigger collections and bigger recovery tanks?

10 Likes

Bingo, you would in essence need to upgrade your system to meet the expansion of productivity. The best way this would make sense is with multiple material columns and recovery units running simultaneously. While one recovers we load another.

5 Likes

Using it to just dump my columns almost seems worth it. I’ve come to despise unpacking my columns.

2 Likes

We run a quad rack system that can do a 10# run in 32-34 minutes. To keep the flow in an 8 hour work day, running 80-120# this helps a lot, even though I’m only using it for unpacking because of my previously stated issue.

I have done yield tests and I have not noticed any significant yield changed going over a 4:1 solvent to material ratio.

The solvent is never saturated so effectively the same solvent is just passing over more resin than before.

If you are worried about yields I would recommend a 10 -20min soak depending on you setup and temp. My 4:1 is just a straight through no soak

3 Likes

@BG305 I wouldn’t pack more than 6# in a column that size.

3 Likes

By the way mine comes with a 4” plate as well if anyone wants it for 4x48

2 Likes

Yeah, thats what we get in there hand packing. I was thinking this thing could have me up in the 9# club maybe even 10.

2 Likes

Yeah I made that mistake with out 6x36 columns and it was like trying to run solvent through a brick. Yields were low and flow was super slow, there a fine line on packing a lot and packing too much

2 Likes

Damn @bg305…this looks like its calling your name…

Maybe we can rent it for a few days to see if the juice is worth the squeeze; “literally”: You 2 are very close to each other. Im sure everyone can work out the logistics as your both in the same area.

2 Likes

That sounds like a plan. Let’s do it. I have to head to the coast tomorrow for supplies.

All great questions and feedback! Sorry in advance this is so long…

I’d like to first point out that the main intent of the packer/unpacker is to remove the most labor and time intensive portion of the entire process e.g. packing and unpacking. Any additional material packed into each column while maintaining percent yields and not having to expand other equipment, such as solvent tanks, etc. is a huge bonus on top of the time and labor savings of automating packing and unpacking with existing amounts of material. For many of our clients, automating unpacking alone is worth the cost. Especially those running fresh frozen, or even worse, in continuously chilled rack mounted and jacketed -40C (or lower) columns. Removing this material by hand is… well, you can imagine I’m sure.

Back to the topic of putting in more material; solvent flow times do increase when adding more biomass. However, that time sacrifice is insignificant when compared to the time and labor savings of automating packing and unpacking. It can also be mitigated by tailoring pressure differential between solvent tank and collection tank. There are several methods to do this.

This information is based on our own R&D on 6 X 36 columns and feedback from our clients. In our experience hand packing columns like a beast (i.e. 10# in a 6 x 36) had diminishing returns since unpacking it was also more difficult and time consuming. Consequently, we would pack about 8#’s by hand. Then we thought, if there was a way to unpack the tighter column with the additional material maybe it would be worth the extra effort of getting the 10# in by hand. That’s when we built the first prototype. With getting the additional 2#’s per column in, removing the unpacking labor and almost all the time from the unpacking process, the Iron Fist was already worth it right then and there and was paying itself off quickly. In doing 5 runs per day we were processing an additional 10# per day and unpacking with the push of a button. At a 15% yield, that was an additional 1.5# of end product per day. Our payoff period of 12K was around 6 days at that point! 6… days… If it was 6 months it would have still been worth it.

Pushing further, we proceeded to work on automating the packing portion of the process. That’s when we optimized our set up at 12# per column using the Iron Fist for packing as well as unpacking. We could actually get 16 in at the limits of the machine but at anything beyond 12# we thought our solvent flow times were too long. This is where the 50% additional material that we recommend comes from (12# in when compared to 8# by hand). We do not recommend grinding the material at all but to each there own. In our process, we run our recovery pump while we introduce solvent into the extraction column. We continuously push/pull the solvent through and maintain our pressure differential. We always soak but vary soak times according to the quality of material we’re running. We noticed about a 15% increase in solvent time going from 8# to 12#. This increase has no relevance, at least to us and our current clients anyway, when processing 20# additional per day with our existing equipment. We have not noticed any significant changes in percent yields while still using the same amount of solvent which was already less than most people use. Yes, solvent flow times will increase; however, our increase in production with most of the labor removed? No brainer.

We know this is a new method and there is a lot of uncertainty and hesitation in the community. We want others to experience the same rewards that we have. We don’t expect anyone to fully understand all the benefits without experiencing them first hand. That’s why when we do demos we sometimes leave the unit overnight or we may pack them one day and come back to unpack them the next day. It just depends on how many appointments we have on that demo trip. Then we wait for the call the next morning that usually goes “can you leave your demo unit with us until you build ours, because there’s no way we can go back now”. We’re confident in our packer/unpacker. Let us pack one or more columns, you process them, then we’ll unpack them. Keep track of your percent yields, cycle times, pack/unpack times, additional yield per cycle, etc. From there, extrapolate for pay off period, ROI, yada yada. If for some reason you decide you don’t want it after the demo, no problem, we got to meet and do some cool shit together, win-win!

Our next demo trip is set for April 4th-8th.

2 Likes

I think i would be down to give it a test drive and try and help improve it. What I’m thinking is with a unit like this it might be better to go with extra large columns as everything can be wall/rack mounted. The next thing would be to ask @Killa12345 what the biggest columns ate that are still practical. The 7’ monsters i have now i think are the limit to be taking down and carrying around. Maybe an 8x48? How much material does that hold?

1 Like

I’d imagine a 8x48 is a 20lb spool. I think that’s a bit large and gonna experience some sorta loss of efficiency

2 Likes

@BG305 you can hit me up if you are around southern Humboldt and check it out! Also If you are doing columns 6x48 is plenty big the @6” diameter you can pack about 3-3.3# by hand so that’s about 13# by hand in those. My buddy says he fits about 15-20# of fresh frozen in them.

2 Likes

Sounds good let’s link up and see what we come up with. I head to the coast once a week.

3 Likes

HAPPY 420!!!

I’d like to share some recent R&D a company did with our Iron Fist column packer and was kind enough to share with us. The main points here are with regards to what happens with percent yield, processing time, solvent loss, etc. when packing more material into a column when compared to what’s possible with the limitations of human strength as well as inconsistencies in packing pressure.

When reviewing the results, notice that there are increases in solvent loss and processing times. This is due to the increased amount of material in the columns obviously. However, when considering the cost of that time and solvent also consider the advantages which, in this case, drastically outweigh any negatives. The system used was with 2 X 6" X 32" columns (labeled as T1 and B1 in results)

Another important thing to note here is that contrary to popular belief, the amount of solvent used was not increased in any of these scenarios. In other words, the same amount of solvent was used to extract from more material with an increase in percent yield and of course, overall yield as well.

I’d be happy to email anyone the worksheet if they would like to enter their own data into the sheet to estimate what your scenario may be.

2 Likes

Any interest in an inline loader for this? 4" and 6" could easily be done. Can put together a kit.

On that note I have a 6x36 iron fist available for sale! Perfect working condition! Pm me if interested

Did you sell your iron fist? Did you find a better solution or dislike something about it?

Tyia

I have not sold it. Been off the forums for a while working on projects. Nothing wrong with it I’m just doing something else. Not ideal for live material. Lol

1 Like