• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

TEK Ethyl acetate approach [CIELO]

This topic contain a TEK
Migrated topic.
I must be runnin dry end of tolerance, or just lucky; you guys keep talking about water issues, i haven’t seen any issues with it.

Today ran 8 runs of magnetic stir and 4 passive, haven’t filtered yet. I prefer the passive, even if it pushes elapsed crystallization time a day or two longer, it minimizes steps and therefore processing time, I’m hoping - even if yields are comparable - that passive puts higher % of crystals in my filter. I’d like to eventually get to the point where i don’t need a water wash - eliminate a couple more processing steps, and a big chunk of elapsed time.
 
I'm not saying there's water issues.

My personal theory is excess water causes goo.

I also personally think water content would play a part with EA recovery due to its ability to be absorbed by the dry mix.
 
Maybe. If so, then must be related to something about the material, cuz I’m running the original ratios without either type problem.

Maybe the grind or moisture content of the powder, possibly the makeup of the diff tissues in material (spines, waxy layer, skin, pulp, core),

How about targeting paste moisture content directly. I think might be better than estimating density.

Make paste, take a sample, weigh it, dry it, weigh again, calc original MC% (like the MC% of paste from people not having problems), compare that to a predetermined target MC%, adjust paste as needed. Then remember what the consistency of your paste looks like at target MC%, for future runs of same material.
 
I too am running the original ratios with no issues.

But I think to really refine things there's a few factors that need collective input to pin point what might give better yields and cleaner crystals:
Paste consistency and mix
Water ratios and water content
Microwaving or not(everyone's microwaves will runs at different wattages too etc)
Cold vs room temp vs warm pulls
Filtering lab vs coffee (may play a factor)
Less citrate appears to give cleaner crystals
etc

And of-course plant variations will play a role to.

Look we can all agree the Tek is amazing as it stands, Loveall and everyone else involved have done amazing work. But if one was to strive for perfection there's a few things that could potentially be refined. Questions that could be answered. And its so great to see so many people discussing, experimenting and recording their observations and results. For me that's one of the best things I've seen and what makes this forum great.

At the end of the day it's kitchen chemistry for most of us, but definitely a solid Tek. I also think even if a slight variation can help yield 5% more or give cleaner crystals then its worth the discussion. For that, I think we can all appreciate each others inputs.

So good work everyone keep it up.
 
I think the issues can be addressed way simple like.

Set paste moisture content standard, drop the variations (they add work and no value), 6 pulls, stir 80 revs for 1 minute & rest for for 2 mins (per pull), filter until clear, passive crystallization until clear (i’m doing work now that compares to active stir, might show each option has their own advantages without yield or quality loss).

I’m about done nailing down what I’m going to do. Time to move on to using the tek to learn about lots of other things. Prob already have a lifetime supply of M, lol.
 
I've only used coffee filters. Have only seen cloudiness if the lime was not completely wet.

Regarding EA absorption, as long as it only happens in the first pull, it is not a big deal. Essentially you are pulling the absorbed EA in later pulls, so you get almost all the product. Hope this makes sense, can get explicit with formulas if needed.

I agree with Cheelin, if the TEK options do not add value, we can delete them (feedback appreciated). Instead focus on the paste consistency and subsequent techniques.

Im going to do a test where I mix the cactus powder and lime, then add water slowly until everything is wet and homogeneous and has had 10 minutes to react ("dense paste" - I imagine it will be like playdough). Then I'm going to take half of that and continue to add water until I get 69ron's ratio ("standard paste" - for which I get the consistency of mashed potatoes). I'll sample the weight of leveled 1/4 cups, and report on yields/whiteness/ease of getting product. Will use the passive xtalization for both (5mg/ml).
 
Loveall, if you’re up for it, maybe you take a small sample from both ends of what you consider the acceptable texture/consistency range, and calc the moisture content, too.
 
Cheelin said:
Loveall, if you’re up for it, maybe you take a small sample from both ends of what you consider the acceptable texture/consistency range, and calc the moisture content, too.
Click to expand...
But isn't this known as long as the starting cactus powder is dry (which it should be, and that can be tested separately). For example for the standard paste (300g water, 100g cacti, 25g lime) moisture content should be 300/425 ~ 71%. Or am I missing something?
 
Not necessarily. What’s the mc% of “dry”? Zero%? I guarantee the powder is not zero mc%, and that HLP’s mc% does not equal yours. When you say there’s too much water, you’re saying mc% is too high.

I’ll measure a sample of mine, when I provide the density. If you did the same, then we might know if mc% is useful or not, in this case.
 
I’m talking about “is”, not “should be”.

Cellulosic material is hygroscopic.

What are you saying when you say too wet, too much water?



Not trying to be a dick.
 
I think Loveall is saying that when I add 300g of water to 100g of "cactus powder", that the end result is more wet than is ideal, or that the texture of the end result is otherwise not consistent compared to another person doing the same extraction. Perhaps this is because I have not ground my cactus powder to perfect flour consistency, or perhaps there is some kind of variation between different types of cactus, or because some of us like me use the whole cactus while others remove the outer waxy skin, spines, and core, etc.
 
The tek says that non-microwaved paste results in EA that may have trouble being reused:

CIELO tek said:
Used solvent from the microwave paste process saturates with tan color and can be reused many times. This process is recommended for reuse. The non microwaved paste seems to load the solvent with chlorophyll indefinitely, making it darker and possibly more difficult to reuse.
Click to expand...

Has anyone tried reusing EA from non-microwaved paste? Perhaps an experiment is in order where we make one paste, split it in three, and compare the yield from fresh EA, used EA from microwaved paste, and used EA from non-microwaved paste. This may be a little bit tricky because in an ideal world you would only compare used EA that you've used on the same source powder right? I have used EA from Bridgsii and used EA from San Pedro, but unfortunately I didn't label them. I suppose I could just mix them together to even them out right?

I am slowly convincing myself that non-microwaved paste results in a better outcome. I'll need to experiment more to confirm this, but the one time I tried non-microwaved resulted in my highest yield and white crystals from even the evaporate. All other times with microwaved resulted in yellow crystals from the evaporate, even while using the same source cactus powder.

It would be nice if we could reuse this EA from non-microwaved paste. I live in a location where you cannot actually purchase EA and have to order it online which I don't like to do.
 
highlightprotein said:
The tek says that non-microwaved paste results in EA that may have trouble being reused:

CIELO tek said:
Used solvent from the microwave paste process saturates with tan color and can be reused many times. This process is recommended for reuse. The non microwaved paste seems to load the solvent with chlorophyll indefinitely, making it darker and possibly more difficult to reuse.
Click to expand...

Has anyone tried reusing EA from non-microwaved paste? Perhaps an experiment is in order where we make one paste, split it in three, and compare the yield from fresh EA, used EA from microwaved paste, and used EA from non-microwaved paste. This may be a little bit tricky because in an ideal world you would only compare used EA that you've used on the same source powder right? I have used EA from Bridgsii and used EA from San Pedro, but unfortunately I didn't label them. I suppose I could just mix them together to even them out right?

I am slowly convincing myself that non-microwaved paste results in a better outcome. I'll need to experiment more to confirm this, but the one time I tried non-microwaved resulted in my highest yield and white crystals from even the evaporate. All other times with microwaved resulted in yellow crystals from the evaporate, even while using the same source cactus powder.

It would be nice if we could reuse this EA from non-microwaved paste. I live in a location where you cannot actually purchase EA and have to order it online which I don't like to do.
Click to expand...

These are good questions. The darker used EA may be ok for reuse, that is why the early TEK uses the wordS "possibly more difficult to reuse". Also, when you tested brine and it didn't remove the green color, was that done on non-micowaved paste? Or was it microwaved paste? I'm principle, brine should remove the green chlorophyll...
 
highlightprotein said:
I think Loveall is saying that when I add 300g of water to 100g of "cactus powder", that the end result is more wet than is ideal, or that the texture of the end result is otherwise not consistent compared to another person doing the same extraction. Perhaps this is because I have not ground my cactus powder to perfect flour consistency, or perhaps there is some kind of variation between different types of cactus, or because some of us like me use the whole cactus while others remove the outer waxy skin, spines, and core, etc.
Click to expand...

Yep, especially when you described the paste sticking to your spoon during the extraction. That seems like a paste that is too wet. It should become loose and sandy during the pulls (at least for the first 30 minutes).
 
Diy experiment:

1. Tare your weigh boat
2. Weight out 10g of your powder
3. Stick it in microwave, on high for 30 second increments, weighing between each 30 secs…notice anything?
4. After, say 4 runs, plug your nums:
[(Begin wt - end wt)/end wt]*100= beginning mc%…and material is prob still not 0% mc.

My dry looking powder is at least 8.8% mc, at time i did experiment.

Actual MC% is relevant for hygroscopic materials when you think “too much water”.

Characteristics of specific material will determine it’s water holding capacity.

My recco is to try to find a standard MC% range for “acceptable” paste consistency.
 
Loveall said:
Also, when you tested brine and it didn't remove the green color, was that done on non-micowaved paste? Or was it microwaved paste? I'm principle, brine should remove the green chlorophyll...
Click to expand...


I tried brine wash on microwaved paste and didn't see any color change in the brine. I'll retry the brine wash on my non-microwaved paste tomorrow after the xtals crash from my last experiment. The difference in color between microwaved and non-microwaved paste is large, so I'm hoping the brine will pull some of that color.

Loveall said:
Yep, especially when you described the paste sticking to your spoon during the extraction. That seems like a paste that is too wet. It should become loose and sandy during the pulls (at least for the first 30 minutes).
Click to expand...

The extraction I did yesterday with Peruvian Torch did not result in the paste sticking to the spoon, and did not result in the "liquidy" appearance that I mentioned before. So I think you are right, perhaps there is some natural variation in the cactus powder that may demand a change in the 69ron ratios. However, I must say that the last san pedro extraction I did (my first non-microwaved) where it resulted in this liquidy/spoon sticking had the highest yield.

I think that there could be a possibility that the slight variation in the texture of the 69ron paste may not materially affect yield. Perhaps another experiment where we use the same cactus powder but different ratios of water?
 
Cheelin said:
I’m talking about “is”, not “should be”.

Cellulosic material is hygroscopic.

What are you saying when you say too wet, too much water?

Not trying to be a dick.
Click to expand...
No worries. We know you're just trying to get a point across and to help everyone be successful with this process.

Cheelin said:
Diy experiment:

1. Tare your weigh boat
2. Weight out 10g of your powder
3. Stick it in microwave, on high for 30 second increments, weighing between each 30 secs…notice anything?
4. After, say 4 runs, plug your nums:
[(Begin wt - end wt)/end wt]*100= beginning mc%…and material is prob still not 0% mc.

My dry looking powder is at least 8.8% mc, at time i did experiment.

Actual MC% is relevant for hygroscopic materials when you think “too much water”.

Characteristics of specific material will determine it’s water holding capacity.

My recco is to try to find a standard MC% range for “acceptable” paste consistency.
Click to expand...
This is a good test proving your starting powder isn't 0% moisture content.

Consider a 100% dry cactus powder versus a powder with 10% moisture:

Dry: 300 grams water / 100 grams cactus = 3.0x water to cactus
10% mc: 300 grams water + 10 grams from the powder = 310 grams / 90 grams cactus = 3.44x water to cactus

So the 10% mc cactus has 15% (3.44 / 3.0) more water than the dry sample when mixed.

Could be on to something here...
 
Ok, here are some results:

- Dry powder in leveled 1/4 cup (60ml): 34g
- Min water paste (see below) in leveled 1/4 cup: 51g

"min water paste": To 100g of dry finely powdered cactus I added 25g of lime and mixed well. Then slowly added water. Observations:

- 0 to 30ml: The paste remained looking dry, no change in color. Minor clumps formed towards the end of this range.
- 30ml to 200ml: Paste begins to look wet and dark green, but it still crumbles and does not stick to itself
- 200ml to 222ml: Paste begins to stick to itself. This is a change that is very easy to see.. Ammonia odor present. Also starts to make a fluffy sound while stirring. I stirred for 10 minutes and verified that texture stopped changing. Paste is completely sticking to itself and makes a sensual wet sound when pressed down. Arm was tired (it should be). I'm hoping this is a good paste (it looks good) it is easy to know when the transition happens. Calling this "min water paste". It is ~25% less water compared to what I was using before when starting with 69ron's paste ratios.

I think everyone can learn to hit this min water paste within +/-10ml of water. It could make results more consistent compared to prescribing a fixed amount of water. Extract is very dark and currently xtalizing (slow diffusion method🤞).
 
Really admire your work and dedication, guys :)

I would suggest activated charcoal for cleaning of used solvent. I use it for xylene and it works well. Just add few grams and mix for some time, then filter.
 
Back
Top Bottom