Seems like this is much more of a problem when folks bake their clay before using it. My guess would be that attrition of the larger clay particles into smaller particles is to blame and the loss of moisture would further compound that effect of attrition.
Maybe that’s why t5 comes with some moisture content? Helps keep the clay stuck together a bit.
Anyone know the moisture content of b80 or t5 from the distributor? Does b80 contain less moisture? From what I’ve read it seems like most of the folks who are using b80 are also baking it.
Im not denying possibility of pH effect, actually.
It must be noted that, along with kind of beeing “structurally” buffered to lower pH, the water that comes associated to it is also buffered, and you may usually find remnants of the reactant employed to activate them (which I think is mainly sulfuric acid and sodium sulfate).
To adress this question, you should systematically check the initial and final pH, and relate it to the various results you get with your product in terms if condistency etc… . If you see large variations in pH upon treatment, then it would indicate wether if pH is at play here. If you monitor the right cresults, it may even give clues on how it works.
Most of these materials have quite similar compositions, 70-80% smectite (I guess thats what the 80 stands for here, as in MX80). This smectite is mainly a montmorillonite (with some vatiation in composition and properties, some degree of alteration to illite as well), which is a negatively charge mineral. This charge (generally in the range of 1 meq/g) is compensated by swarms of cations sorbed on basal and edge surfaces. In ambiant condition, these cations are accompanied by a sphere of water (to solvate them). This what make this material hygroscopic (up to the level where they are at equilibrium witj ambient air reltive humidity). In the peculiar case of montmorillonites, this also participate in their swelling behavior.
The ammount of “water layers” accumulated at the surface is a function of RH, of the ammount of sorbed cations (thus of the layer charge), and of the nature of the sorbed cations (mainly: bivalent vs monovalent). Bivalent are more hydrated than monovalent.
Roughly, in ambiant conditions, you can count 8-12 wt.% water for pure sodic clay, and 12-16 wt.% for pure calcic clay.
Acid activated clay are also often sodium exchanged, so the may come with slightly less water than natural clay (which can be Ca or Na dominant depending on origin). But the content is anyway always substantial.
Drying by baking may collapse the interlayers, but provided thar this is not done at too high temperature (below 200c, 110 is much enough), this is a reversible process. Another solvent such as the one used here can replace it. That’s where preconditioning with a convenient solvent might be a smart move.
What would microwaving the powders do to them? I’ve done it in the past in short bursts, 15-30 seconds, and I think a few others here have done so as well. Would this collapse the layers too?
Wow, the detail here is fantastic. Thanks so much.
I baked the clay over night under vac, full clean on my system and will try with solely washed and dried B80.
My run yesterday (T41, Celite and B80) came out a bit more snappy, still a touch tacky. But sacrificed some yield and colour.
My question is, what is really stumping me;
Why did the first run I did with the following controls end up perfect? Product was clean, snappy and has a slight nose to it. Terpene profile was good for shatter.
Run 1:
1:1 B80/trim in the CRC column
chilled fuel
filter stack
5lbs trim
I’m getting all my different tests done with a chemist friend for the breakdown of cannabinoids, PH level, terpene profile. The second stuff I had tested (using unwashed B80) had an extremely high terpene profile for shatter. Which leads me to believe the acidity might be off. I will get PH levels back today.
We started running into the same issue this whole week. Ours seemed to progressively get more terpy and tackier over the course of the week. We typically run b80, AA but have tried it with a t5/AA and just t5 with no real change.
We suspect we have built up terpenes in our solvent tank. We recently switched to column recovery with a trs21 and warm water sleeve. And we top off the main solvent tank with that recovered solvent.
We will be cleaning that solvent on Monday to see if that helps.
Has anyone else had too many terps trapped in the solvent tank ?
The test run of the B80 clay which was under vac and baked for 12 hours came out very clean and snapped within 30 mins of being in the oven after it was muffined. I will test again in higher volume tomorrow, but so far seems to be the answer
Maybe im missing something but i purposely want my slabs to do this and if it doesnt happen i know its some junk.
I have equated it to the CRC media removing pigment, etc that makes the individual compounds rock up (crash) easier. Maybe im totally wrong
If i make slabs that dont have as heavy terps it could take a week or more for this to occur.
If its super saucy it will crash over night and the more terps present more THCa will precipitate out in a sugary form (over time depending on temp/pressure)
The very best slabs will crash overnight under -20"Hg vacuum at 85°F
Why would I want slabs that dont crash out? If its weak trim it should goto distillate/isolate anyways. Slabs are so 10 years ago and imo are for the BM
If i get slabs that dont nucleate its from 1 of 2 things
Good question the reason you want them to sugar up is then the terps separate from the crystals. And the more terps you have (live resin is best) the more they separate from the precipitated crystals and then you have this beautiful mother liquor that smells better than the actual starting material.
Thats what i use to cut my distillate with at about 30% to make a primo cannabis only pen cart
So to paraphrase myself - no theyre not slabs anymore, if you CR’d properly they should be pretty close to isolate
I’ve baked my clay under vac at a few different temps, as the reps increased more and more moisture was pulled. Left the trays of clay under vac with no continuous suction for a night and my oven was lined with precipitation. I’m shocked at the moisture content of this material and leaving it out if your in a humid area obviously make it a lot worse.
The more I bake the clay the more snap in my material. Although using the moist B80 seems to kill it when your wanting nucleation. Mimics live resin incredibly.
I would not advise microwave, but who knows. This is not a conventional method in clay sciences, Im not aware of any use. Only thing I know is that it is not a homogeneous process (hence the spinning plate in classic devices), and may be detrimental if focused on the same spot for too long.
The oven techniques is the classic.
Freeze drying can be superior, but not of great interest in the present topic (more in case where you intend to powderise the material afterwards. ).
Solvent exhange works as well, but that is not of interest in the present topic neither (main interest is for special embeding technique for microstructural studies).
the reason you want them to sugar up is then the terps separate from the crystals. And the more terps you have (live resin is best) the more they separate from the precipitated crystals and then you have this beautiful mother liquor that smells better than the actual starting material.
