Wiped Film Parameters



Yeah… no blindfold…what is this the cartel?
I think a phone consultation would be best for your situation, more cost effective with less risk. Your other option is to take a short path distillation class. If you can grasp the fundementals of short path you’ll be able to apply some of your knolage to the POPE.


Psst, Future is also holding a sesh @ $500 a head in LA next week where you can pick his brain - a plane ticket there would be so fucking worth it for you it hurts.


Lol noncartel here brother


I didn’t know that at all might have to make arrangements


If you’re getting red streaks, turn your temp down or release some vac. it’s too hot.


@EndlessOps Please see the private messageI sent you! I think you will be pleased. :blush:


Are you running a Pope?


No it’s not a pope I’ll have pics soon


Yup. That’s what I had to do. Running about 15° lower than usual.


Feed material is winterized/decarbed/scrubbed/degassed > 65% THC

column temp : 155c
internal condensor : 60c-80c
blade speed: 90-100%
Pressure < 350 mtorr
feed rate - need to quantify better, but def can get a feel for needed rate based on how residue is looking.

If everything goes well we are generally seeing around 85%-93% THC

The placement of the thermocouple and vacuum sensor can influence accurate numbers, so i’m think of how to best calibrate these.


So for the chillers in the system what temps are a good starting point? The internal condenser? Anyone have s good idea how cold I should run it at?


:slight_smile: The post right above yours lists internal condenser: 60-80C, which pretty much covers the range of temps in the thread in general (it does cover).

For the external condenser, the only temp listed in this thread is -20C. The object of that condenser is to keep things out of your pump. So as cold as you can manage is not unreasonable. you should still have a -80C trap before your pump. dry-ice/iso is simplest to implement.

Caveat: my WFE is still a series of quotes at this point


Wow didn’t even see that thanks man yes we plan on using dry ice iso


Hi. Calibration of a single thermocouple pair for such a large process (typical) can be tough because of the natural temperature gradients present in such a short distance.

This suggests the need to average out temperature readings that the thermocouple is providing your control. One way to do this is to wire two or more thermocouples in parallel with each other and terminated on each end with a simple five cent swamping resistor so the control will see just one input averaged. Any resistance value will do really so long as the resistors are high accuracy and are fairly high. You can look up parallel wiring of these things and how to do it.

“Thermocouple” is a shortened name for thermocouple pair. They are just two wires twisted together. So long as the two wires are not the same metal they form a thermocouple pair. When the metal in the wires is known a circuit can measure it and amplify it because it produces a voltage in relationship to the heat at the metal junction.

Wiring two or more thermocouple pairs in parallel will produce two or more voltages, one at each thermocouple junction. In parallel the voltages will average each other. Low on one and high on another results in a voltage midway between all thermocouple pairs wired together this way and the control will see then the average of all as one voltage input.

Adding resistors costs likely fifty cents lolz but is necessary and is outside the scope of this blog to explain why but it is because each thermocouple pair is a slightly different length and the calibration circuit cannot deal with this with accuracy unless matched with swamping resistors this way. You can look it up…

The controller only sees one input like this but it is averaged. If you had ten thermocouple pairs wired in parallel this way it would average all ten together as an example of how far you could go with the design idea. I am just wiring a new idea together using this well known technique for high precision thermal control in my own SOP.


can you send more info on that


Hey Beaker,

Could you use this idea to help improve the consistency of the Pope heating band system?

Is that what you’re talking about?

I was kind of shocked that their 6" still system only came with a single thermocouple and controller to deal with such a large surface area.

I understand what you’re saying about averaging the outputs from multiple thermocouples together into a single input for the controller. For an application like the Pope heat bands, do you think it would be more advantageous to wire each individual band with it’s own thermocouple and controller? That way they could all be set the same or at a gradient.


I know nothing about the Pope. I used to work as a control systems engineer which dealt with automation. Automation uses a range of sensors and thermocouples are just one type of many I integrated as a much younger lad lolz. Back then we used embedded systems and PLCs and such like that.

The answer to your question is yes. I do think controlling the thermal gradient precisely over the entire uptake path will allow for fractionating that is much easier to control and so could produce much higher purities.

Let me note though as an former engineer that your question in this particular instance should be answered by the Pope engineering staff. They probably aren’t as stoned as I am plus, I have no way of knowing what kind of fault monitoring they do and adding an unknown component and concept to their design might result in World chaos, civil disruption, regime change, and a voided warranty…

(Vaping another bag now…) … :wind_face: ok. I’m back. (Mostly)

My own solution and initial labs into this idea is a horizontal configuration using kugelrohr bulbs. It does work to heat the catch bulb in the horizontal train to make it also into a boiling flask and fraction into the next bulb in the train. The train is inclined at a slight angle for this to work.

I currently use this configuration to remove terps alone in just the first bulb. However with a mantle on each bulb in the horizontal train I can very easily fraction the compound out into each target bulb. I have done tests proving out the idea in prototype mode. I can easily bring the cannabinoid across horizontally but am limited to swapping bulbs to collect one fraction at a time. With a horizontal method my control of gradient is more precise because of no thermal stacking issues and I would not have to change bulbs. Plus I still have one outlet left on my UPS box on my lab table and half a roll of solder. I have lots of duct tape too. :nerd_face:

I better log now. Pinky and I have plans to make for tonight…:mouse2::mouse:


Are you talking about the heating mantel temps?


Internal condenser.


I run dynalene 600 for hot. Hc-50 for cold