Trickster said:
For a number of reasons I do not think your results should be considered as a basis for general conclusions. That's what 69ron was saying.
E.g. when I was experimenting with STB, several times my yield was ~2% (1.5% after re-xing). I did not run an A/B on that batch but I doubt I could have gotten 4% yield with any tek.
Also most people agree that an essential part of an A/B is filtering and discarding solids after the "A" stage. So, Panoramix's tek is sort of enchanced STB, rather than a proper A/B. Therefore we can only talk about comparing these two teks (Panoramix's and STB).
For any far reaching conclusions your result should be repeatable by anybody anywhere under the same conditions. Otherwise they could be experimenter-specific. Only if you run a few dozen Panoramix's and STB extractions and average your results you can generalize.
Trickster - I am fielding information and sharing my experiences. There is clearly not enough information or repetition to base any solid conclusions on (nor is performing these teks dozens of times practical), nor was I proposing that this was the end of the line and the final word on comparing these two teks. I guess I assume anyone with a head on their shoulders would understand this, so i didn't see the need to spell it out.
Insofar as your high STB yield goes, am I to assume it was Gir's tek you used? if not, it's not a fair comparison, nor is it one if you didn't use the same bark that i used for my comparison (I assumed this also, would be obvious).
I really am having trouble understanding your attitude toward this thread. Should we not be encouraging this sort of experimentation? And encouraging sound method and applauding others efforts? You seem to have a real problem with what's been done here, and are prone to hyperbole to support your points - where do you get that "most people agree that an essential part of an A/B is filtering and discarding solids after the "A" stage"? There seemed to have in actuality been as much contention as agreement when that point was brought up in this thread, and do I need to point out again that this definition is present NOWHERE ON THIS SITE? I have been clear about addressing yours and others concerns in the thread and in the conclusion, but until an A/B is defined the way you define it, I have no other alternative than to rely on its placement in the A/B tek section in the wiki. What is so difficult to understand about this? You brought up a valid but contentious point, and I addressed it and added caveats all through the process, even adding quotation marks around all subsequent references to the "A/B" tek...
You have access to the wiki - change the definition yourself, and if it is accepted, we'll take panoramix tek out of the A/B section and create a subcategory. And i will rename this thread appropriately. But I will not take it on your sole authority.
"For any far reaching conclusions your result should be repeatable by anybody anywhere under the same conditions. Otherwise they could be experimenter-specific. Only if you run a few dozen Panoramix's and STB extractions and average your results you can generalize."
I never claimed "far-reaching conclusions", nor were they implied (there's the hyperbole again). Insofar as being "repeatable by anybody anywhere under the same conditions", we are on an internet forum!! Even if you order bark from my vendor, there are no assurances that it will be the same bark, so from the get-go no one can create the "same conditions". Do I really need to spell this out? I took it for granted that no one would be using this thread as the last word in A/B vs STB comparison, or even the last word on the comparison of these two teks!
All experiments, btw, by ANYONE on this forum are "experimenter-specific", so your pointing it out in this case kinda seems a little condescending and mean spirited. I can only assume you side with Ron69 and assert, in my words, either or all:
"A - that tek comparisons are pointless
B - that no lab processes or tests are valid
C - that MY method is suspect
By default it must be one of these, or why post at all? We are all aware of the fallibility of the process, but from there to a conclusion that processes are pointless is too large a leap for me. I guess for anyone out there who agrees with Ron, the only solution is to ignore this thread and do your own comparisons!! I personally would like to encourage everyone to do similar side by sides, for reasons stated above."
So where does this leave us? Rather counterproductive and short sighted stance IMO, if your goal is to discourage experimentation on this forum. If not, then why not do what everyone else seems to be doing, and take this thread for what it is: one person's sharing of their time and experience to try and enrich and further the knowledge base on the nexus by encouraging further experimentation?
I really don't know what else to say, other than this is all rather exhausting, and I really don't feel encouraged to post any more experiments. Maybe that'll make some of you happier.
JBArk
