I guess it depends on what we define scaleable is; it’s nothing more than a co2 setup with a step beforehand, and (in my opinion) a faster extraction afterwards. Would probably have the same runtime to yield as a co2 setup, with better turps? It’s always going to be less and less scalable for the higher and higher turpene retention though I’d assume.
Unless something new has been developed, to my knowledge inert gas stripping doesn’t work well on a large scale.
I guess really hard vacuum on large tubes can be an issue? Any guess as to what it would top out at? Or what limitation you’d need to overcome?
I believe the vacuum is the main issue, at some point it’s not cost effective to have the capability of getting a vessel that holds 10 lbs down to the appropriate depth.
Guess I’ll just run an army of 5lb tubes lol
Thanks for the feedback!
Well that isn t really a problem full vac is 1kg to every 1cm2 so 32" diameter ss pipes can hold that straight
Cheers, I posited the chilled 4th vessel to my lab partner way back. It can be recovered from the recycler if timed properly, hardly worth it in my experience.
I would imagine the chilled vessel utilizing a bypass of the first 3 collection vessels would allow for better quality and preservation as opposed to having it exposed to varying pressure and higher temperature. If it were up to me, I’d have extracted at much lower temperature and higher pressure.
I don’t deal with c02 but that sounds ideal
Does the lower temp higher pressure increase turpene solvency but not pickup the thc?
Also, there’s mention of the extra expansion chambers… If you were only doing the turpene pull without the thc pull, could you do it on just the single chilled chamber? Or would you still need multiple?
It would just be a means to avoid terpene degradation, depending on the parameters you could pull it all to one vessel. It would be pretty painstaking though,