CIELO Pull Step Question / Suggestion

[Introspection]

I did find a similar topic here (CIELO crystallization step temperature question - Welcome discussion - Welcome to the DMT-Nexus), but since my question / comment is regarding the pull step, I decided to create a new topic.

One thing I noticed in all the posted CIELO experiments, is that the amount of water used when creating the base cactus paste influences the yield. This isn't unexpected, since freebase mescaline is moderately soluble in water as well. This means that the freebase mescaline will be partially dissolved in the water, and partially dissolved in the ethyl acetate, so you need to do multiple pulls to obtain all the goods.

So what I was wondering is: What would happen / what kind of yields would we get, if we skipped the water step altogether? And by that, I mean covering the raw cactus material in ethyl acetate and adding some calcium hydroxide or sodium carbonate to basify the solution. Of course, a non Aqueous solution cannot be basic or acid by definition, but there should be some water in the ethyl acetate and/or the cactus material. A PH measurement could be used to verify whether the solution is indeed basic. Adding a tiny (emphasis on tiny) bit of water could be used if needed.

The pull itself might become a bit slower, since there are less OH- ions to create the freebase mescaline. But that's perfectly fine if it involves just letting the solution sit. Some advantages I can potentially see:

- You could potentially be able to extract more with the same number of pulls, or you could extract the same with fewer pulls
- Some people have some issues with water droplets in the crystallization step. This could potentially be avoided.
- You would need less solvent if you are doing fewer pulls

Some disadvantages I could see:
- It simply does not work.

Has anyone tried this or something similar? And if so, how have the results been?

 

[Cheelin]

I did find a similar topic here (CIELO crystallization step temperature question - Welcome discussion - Welcome to the DMT-Nexus), but since my question / comment is regarding the pull step, I decided to create a new topic.

One thing I noticed in all the posted CIELO experiments, is that the amount of water used when creating the base cactus paste influences the yield. This isn't unexpected, since freebase mescaline is moderately soluble in water as well. This means that the freebase mescaline will be partially dissolved in the water, and partially dissolved in the ethyl acetate, so you need to do multiple pulls to obtain all the goods.

So what I was wondering is: What would happen / what kind of yields would we get, if we skipped the water step altogether? And by that, I mean covering the raw cactus material in ethyl acetate and adding some calcium hydroxide or sodium carbonate to basify the solution. Of course, a non Aqueous solution cannot be basic or acid by definition, but there should be some water in the ethyl acetate and/or the cactus material. A PH measurement could be used to verify whether the solution is indeed basic. Adding a tiny (emphasis on tiny) bit of water could be used if needed.

The pull itself might become a bit slower, since there are less OH- ions to create the freebase mescaline. But that's perfectly fine if it involves just letting the solution sit. Some advantages I can potentially see:

- You could potentially be able to extract more with the same number of pulls, or you could extract the same with fewer pulls
- Some people have some issues with water droplets in the crystallization step. This could potentially be avoided.
- You would need less solvent if you are doing fewer pulls

Some disadvantages I could see:
- It simply does not work.

Has anyone tried this or something similar? And if so, how have the results been?

Imo, this doesn’t work. I have done multiple trials varying the water in the paste and allowing for water droplets in the combined pulls.

I’ll take the easy one first. I am highly skeptical that water droplets do anything in the combined pulls except leach the M from the EA, and thereby reduce yield during salting. There has been discussion about water in the pulls causing goo, I disagree with this, and have posted my trials that demonstrate that water in the pulls does not necessarily cause goo formation. My trials do demonstrate the drop in yield, though.

Re: water usage in pastemaking.
I have demonstrated that the tek can be easily scaled, see link in the tek to my “Great Success” recipe.
I encourage you to do some trials of your own with 5-10g cactus powder samples w scaled ingredients, no changes to process steps or times. Try not using water, compare to properly following the tek.

The reason water is required in pastemaking is that the basic pH M is contained within the powder granules, and needs a polar solvent (water) to basify the water, penetrate the material, and grab the M. The pulls, are done with a non-polar solvent (EA), which enables the M to somewhat selectively migrate out of the polar solvent, to be separated from most of the plant components and subsequently precipitate/crystallize when the non-polar solvent becomes acidified.

The tek calls for 1:3 cactus powder:water amounts, It turns out that this ratio is very important in the pull process. Too little water results in drier paste and lower amounts of grabbed M; too much water and the paste turns into a sillyputty-like substance, which limits migration of M into the non-polar solvent.

Maximum yield comes from using the 1:3 ratio, and then tuning it slightly for your powder’s condition, so that when you do your pulls, the paste becomes applesause-like in appearance, imo, the ideal pull condition.

 

[Introspection]

The reason water is required in pastemaking is that the basic pH M is contained within the powder granules, and needs a polar solvent (water) to penetrate the material and grab the M. The pulls, are done with a non-polar solvent (EA), which enables the M to somewhat selectively migrate out of the polar solvent

But wouldn't the ethyl acetate be able to penetrate the material as well? Isopropyl alcohol has been used for mescaline extractions as well. Obviously in far less sophisticated TEKs, but the fact it's been successfully used to pull mescaline out of the powder proves to me that these solvents do penetrate the material, or they wouldn't work in extractions.

Obviously Isopropyl alcohol is not the same as ethyl acetate, but they do not differ by a huge amount in terms of properties. So I wouldn't be surprised if ethyl acetate was able to penetrate the material as well. Maybe it would take more time, which would require longer soaks, but it might be worth it if the advantages turn out to be true.

I agree that testing it out would probably be the best way forward. Unfortunately, I do not have any material in my possession right now, but once I do, I might try out your suggestion to do some experiments with a low amount of material to see if I can get it to work.

 

[Loveall]

I don't know why, but if drying after basing I have not had any success with mescaline extraction into solvents in general (including using stuff like limonene). Good news is that by re-wetting with water mescaline was recovered.

 

[Cheelin]

The reason water is required in pastemaking is that the basic pH M is contained within the powder granules, and needs a polar solvent (water) to penetrate the material and grab the M. The pulls, are done with a non-polar solvent (EA), which enables the M to somewhat selectively migrate out of the polar solvent

But wouldn't the ethyl acetate be able to penetrate the material as well? Isopropyl alcohol has been used for mescaline extractions as well. Obviously in far less sophisticated TEKs, but the fact it's been successfully used to pull mescaline out of the powder proves to me that these solvents do penetrate the material, or they wouldn't work in extractions.

Obviously Isopropyl alcohol is not the same as ethyl acetate, but they do not differ by a huge amount in terms of properties. So I wouldn't be surprised if ethyl acetate was able to penetrate the material as well. Maybe it would take more time, which would require longer soaks, but it might be worth it if the advantages turn out to be true.

I agree that testing it out would probably be the best way forward. Unfortunately, I do not have any material in my possession right now, but once I do, I might try out your suggestion to do some experiments with a low amount of material to see if I can get it to work.

I forgot to mention that the water also distributes the lime, which is also necessary to grab the M. Made slight edit above. I’m not a chemist but i think this is all related to solute solvent pH/pka and polarity.

Edit: could be as simple as lime is more soluble in water, enough to be trasportable into cactus material, than Iso or EA

Like i said, i’ve done this already and it didn’t work for me, but go ahead and do your own trial, prove me wrong. Loveall may chime in to give you a deeper, clearer explanation of the rationale/mechanisms.

 

[Cheelin]

Oh, there he is. Lol

 

[Introspection]

I don't know why, but if drying after basing I have not had any success with mescaline extraction into solvents in general (including using stuff like limonene). Good news is that by re-wetting with water mescaline was recovered.

Interesting. Did you try longer soaks as well when using dry material?

 

[shroombee]

But wouldn't the ethyl acetate be able to penetrate the material as well? Isopropyl alcohol has been used for mescaline extractions as well. Obviously in far less sophisticated TEKs, but the fact it's been successfully used to pull mescaline out of the powder proves to me that these solvents do penetrate the material, or they wouldn't work in extractions.

99% IPA does not work for mescaline extractions because mescaline malate is not soluble in IPA. Mescaline malate is the presumed natural salt form present in the cactus. IPA with 10-15% water content is the probable sweet spot for IPA extractions.

Check this out: What form of mescaline is in the cactus naturally? - FAQ - All your basic questions and answers - Welcome to the DMT-Nexus

 

[Loveall]

I don't know why, but if drying after basing I have not had any success with mescaline extraction into solvents in general (including using stuff like limonene). Good news is that by re-wetting with water mescaline was recovered.

Interesting. Did you try longer soaks as well when using dry material?

No, I simply, based, dried, pulled, and got no mescaline. Then I added water until homogeneous, pulled and got the goods as usual

 

[Introspection]

Another thing that would be interesting to experiment with, would be the crystallization step in my opinion. In the main topic (I cannot post there yet) there is some ongoing discussion regarding the crystallization step, where for one user it keeps precipitating out as oil instead of crystals.

One variable from experiment to experiment is definitely the addition of the citric acid: Some granules are larger / smaller than others, affecting how quickly it dissolves. The amount of citric acid used can be different. And the fact if and how things are stirred can affect the speed at which it dissolves. One variable can definitely be controlled: The speed at which the citric is dissolved.

What if, instead of adding the citric acid directly, citric acid is first fully dissolved in a separate container in ethyl acetate, creating a saturated citric acid ethyl acetate solution. Then this solution is added to the solution containing the dissolved freebase mescaline. I can see the following advantages:

1. Dissolving time (stirring, granule size, etc) is no longer a factor, since it's already completely dissolved from start.
2. Hopefully crystallization becomes more reproducible by taking out more variables, preventing things like oil precipitating out.
3. Any floating crystals / granules is definitely mescaline citrate, and cannot be confused with the citric acid, since the citric acid is completely dissolved and should not crash out.

The downside is obviously the fact that more solvent is needed, but it might be a trade-off that is worth exploring. Thoughts?

 

[Cheelin]

Goo formation is a sideshow w this tek, I have done about 150 consecutive runs - a chunk of those trying to create goo - not a single hint of goo.

That said, get some powder and start testing your ideas.


I’ve linked your suggestion into the Eyhyl Acetate Approach thread.

 

[Introspection]

Appreciate the fact you've linked my suggestion in the main thread, thank you very much Will follow the discussion closely.

 

[Loveall]

Another thing that would be interesting to experiment with, would be the crystallization step in my opinion. In the main topic (I cannot post there yet) there is some ongoing discussion regarding the crystallization step, where for one user it keeps precipitating out as oil instead of crystals.

One variable from experiment to experiment is definitely the addition of the citric acid: Some granules are larger / smaller than others, affecting how quickly it dissolves. The amount of citric acid used can be different. And the fact if and how things are stirred can affect the speed at which it dissolves. One variable can definitely be controlled: The speed at which the citric is dissolved.

What if, instead of adding the citric acid directly, citric acid is first fully dissolved in a separate container in ethyl acetate, creating a saturated citric acid ethyl acetate solution. Then this solution is added to the solution containing the dissolved freebase mescaline. I can see the following advantages:

1. Dissolving time (stirring, granule size, etc) is no longer a factor, since it's already completely dissolved from start.
2. Hopefully crystallization becomes more reproducible by taking out more variables, preventing things like oil precipitating out.
3. Any floating crystals / granules is definitely mescaline citrate, and cannot be confused with the citric acid, since the citric acid is completely dissolved and should not crash out.

The downside is obviously the fact that more solvent is needed, but it might be a trade-off that is worth exploring. Thoughts?

It's a fine idea. However, it adds another solution/jar to manage. For me, the beauty of CIELO is how fast and simple it is. The satisfaction of lazily going into the pantry and dumping half a teaspoon of citric acid into the pulls to get pure and white xtals the next day is lovely for me.

However, if it helps the goo issue some are seeing, great. Will need tests to know, which I can't do because I don't see goo.

 

[orchidist]

I'm definitely curious/foolish enough to devote more time to figure this out. Similar thoughts about controlling the citric addition rate have crossed my mind. Will keep updating in the main thread