Swagelok 304l ss vessel
- Thread starter oilmkr420
- Start date
oilmkr420
Active Member
I like that set up from Andy Joseph and I like his company. I am very familiar w his work. I do believe the cost of that unit is somewhere in the $68,000 area, unless that is a unit more decked out than their entry level extractor. This thread is for people who realistically want to perform their extractions at a price still out of range for most anyone here who feels it's going to pay for itself and flip a profit. You would pump out wax til you died still paying off the unit from Apex Supercritical. The fact is people are to cheap to spend $500 on a entry level professional unit, let alone turn it into a corporate career.
oilmkr420
Active Member
Then it's done strictly for profit, as yield of highest priority. The only way thats going to happen w no co-solvents is 10,000psi, and100C. At that temperature and pressure, you will extract high yields from ballast, waxes, etc not really desired part of the extract. It's how its acceptably stepped on by cutting it w what the plant is made from. I am most concerned w potency, but you don't get both unless you fractionate the extract, setting aside the primary extract, which has not battered and deformed the benzene rings w the use of such high pressure. The personal smoke is really the low side of co2. I must say that it's a column that we really want, not a big wide opening. In fact, the pressure it better kept w ⅛" lines and depressurized w ¼" lines as to avoid ice plugs. I would gladly take on your challenge
oilmkr420
Active Member
I do both supercritical fluids and subcritical liquids, where I would put money on potency and have you look at me the same as Eden Labs looks at me, as the right to this field I know what I'm talking about. You can put your money on pure co2, but I know exactly where the money is and pretty much just stick to preserving delicate fragile molecules and have ethanol work a bunch of magic as well. So it lead me to blending things w co2, where I have found a great blend of wax recipes kind of similar, but each different concoction has nice attributes to their use. If they didn't, had a foul taste, or had a negative effect, I wouldn't use them. Methyl Chloroform is the shit, ISOBUTANE is a good co-solvent 75-28-5, R-113 is the shit, Moonshine is the shit, Chloroform is also the shit, Propane, and Hexane, all have interesting results and its used to vary results just as temperature and pressure will vary the extract. You would have no idea your going up against a king of the back yarders who you balk at. You would eat your words at my end product, then practice what I preach.
oilmkr420
Active Member
When we harvest, I will definitely post picts. As of now, I'm blasting shit that's been hit w butane once before. Ive been able to reclaim 3.6 grams from this stuff using co2 as a subcritical liquid from 3 oz. Using it as a supercritical fluid has pulled 6.2 grams from 4 oz at 6,000psi and 140F. Those are some numbers that were recorded from a couple pre-blasted batches.
oilmkr420
Active Member
I would love to compete w your extract. If you think co2 alone does it's finest work, then back to the drawing board you will go. I was also wondering the Patent Numbers, since my methodology was revolving around previous patents, which is public information as to have the bar raised. By learning from them, I found one thing of most importance, these methods way rock the current BHO methods in several aspects. Since you do not use co-solvents, how can you say I infringe upon your patents? I use about three different methods I created from my head and you claim I owe you royalties? A lot of different names? You are aware of me as co2extractor and ...? I compete and have taken customers from Eden Labs, who are also aware of me, that my understanding of this subject goes into great depth. Just compare 2 extracts of the same product.
oilmkr420
Active Member
Now by comparing the two, the first one pictured was mine. It was a crystalline blasted from the vessel. That was low pressure co2 using water as a co-solvent about 20 bar at 65F. Now Eden on the other hand, used high pressure 9,500psi and 212F. Look at the waxy bulk they pulled as a sample, they charged $16 an oz for this extraction when 10 lbs of plant matter was chosen. They made out like bandits. It's why I asked R&R what it cost per batch run. Nonetheless, it had got Edens attention when they will blindly give analysis on both our extracts, not knowing which was which, but knowing my product purity was much higher.
jyndustriez
Member
You can search for the patent yourself.
Whether it is my patent, or others, you may not want to outright admit that "since my methodology was revolving around previous patents, which is public information as to have the bar raised." you are taking ideas from patents and then selling machines that use that information.
Spend more time on actual research and experiments and less on the forums mucking them up. Byebye
Whether it is my patent, or others, you may not want to outright admit that "since my methodology was revolving around previous patents, which is public information as to have the bar raised." you are taking ideas from patents and then selling machines that use that information.
Spend more time on actual research and experiments and less on the forums mucking them up. Byebye
Last edited:
jyndustriez
Member
On second thought, moderators? This clown has outright admitted that he is infringing on patents, that's plural, and advertises the infringing products for sale on the same thread.
oilmkr420
Active Member
So I checked out w what your working w. No disrespect jyndustries, but your methodology differs so much more than mine, you wish yours were as innovating and forward thinking as mine. It's for that very reason I know your extract hasn't got what it takes to out shine not even the black extract I pull. You use the right materials, just swap out that brass piece and your in the game, just not winning. What was the rated pressure of your set-up and how much co2 does it take to extract that pound of plant matter? How was your yield? What was your working pressure and temperature you taken it to? I think perhaps your methods are a bit underdeveloped to stand a chance w methods I had been researching for near 4 years or so. Why do you make a how to video just to recommend people not to try this at home?
oilmkr420
Active Member
To the guys who have their shit together, the greens to back it, can show what apex supercritical has to offer, I tip my hat off to you. It has got me back on the ball for a project that has been curbed since I was busted for manufacturing back in July last year. It's where I demonstrated and flexed muscle, not even having a membership to the bar, owning all the evidence against me and representing myself in court like a big boy. Having the case D.A. Rejected after the NSF was called upon to back my shit up. So my project is off the back burner and is to be put in the front of priority. 6,000 psi and 10,000 psi rated respectfully is coming to life and I want to thank hasmasta-kut or whoever is responsible for this inspiration given back to me. No hate and much love for ya baby.So lookie what came in today !!
Machine #1
labs not finished yet but closer.
oilmkr420
Active Member
United States Patent Application: 0030050334
Intellectual property that is public information and is where I based my methodology from, since when I followed instructions, seen these guys knew what they where talking about, unlike the common knowledge shared amongst you guys. Now if noted, my methods differ so much and from the schematic itself, isn't the same thing, just closely related end products. It's why I can confidently boast my shit, cuz I learned from some of the best and also contribute to the subject in terms of efficiency and potency. My game is up to par.
Intellectual property that is public information and is where I based my methodology from, since when I followed instructions, seen these guys knew what they where talking about, unlike the common knowledge shared amongst you guys. Now if noted, my methods differ so much and from the schematic itself, isn't the same thing, just closely related end products. It's why I can confidently boast my shit, cuz I learned from some of the best and also contribute to the subject in terms of efficiency and potency. My game is up to par.
oilmkr420
Active Member
When the comparison to the Bitter Kola Nut extraction from both Eden Labs and myself, the relevance is to whom I am competing w and who are also becoming aware of my talents, not being limited to mmj and excelling at that as well. From the stock brokers that stuff came from, came the stuff from Eden Labs in my hands as we compared a visual inspection of product purity. That shit Eden submit was used in a porn convention out in Vegas where the stars were knowingly given this stuff and told to fuck. It had a success rate of 8/10 agreed it worked as an aphrodisiac. I never really ingested it, but through skin absorption alone from scraping it off the glass when dried, felt it's effects and knew they had a marketable product. That shits off the hook.
oilmkr420
Active Member
Hashmasta-kut, after you get your entry level training from Apex on the operation of their machine, perhaps a week, get back to the thread and post your results. If your not confident against some bho's out their, you need not even comet against what I got on the table. The fact is there is some pretty good bho out their, but since I make it notable and the separation definitive, even a blind person can tell the difference between chemical solvent extraction and scf extracts, the use of co-solvents is undetectable and thus top note pronounced and preserved regardless of sub or supercritical mode. Super just increases yield, not potency even though there is more cannabinoids in the extract, not in proportion to the waxy, bulky yields that will contain ballast etc so forget about winterizing it now as the severe condition of 100C and 10,000 psi are introduced. Will none the less, be a fresh tasting extract if it were the primary extract done, or it can be fractionated to be the only thing a club offers making co2 look bad and keeping all the prime stuff for themselves. Idk if Apex has dedicated the potency in this area as a driving force of the objective. I have followed instruction, and from what I've read, is encouraged for anyone who has the ability to understand and not limit, but use the information for a bases of understanding not limited to the printed information. For that reason, I qualify for patents of my own skirting around 60:1 gear ratio pump, right off the bat and combat w clever introduction of co-solvents, but will automate and use a mitsubishi plc and have many options as it replaces thousands of relays on a touch screen. Ive been looking the least forward to this part of integration, but knowing the advantages can't be as accurate for the tasks of O2 ear wax. Now if Apex not cover this area, then stay away from this area.
jyndustriez
Member
So, it seems your tactic is to spit out useless information to confuse the reader into thinking you know what you are talking about.
You have no clue what my most recent methods are, the links were to reference your copying of my concepts from awhile ago.
I guess for the record i will dispute you point by moot point.
Your use of cosolvents does not clear you of patent violation. It is my collection of passive extractions in particular that you are violating. If you think I am joking, by all means go ahead with what you are doing and I promise repercussions. Every promise I have made publicly, I have followed through with.
Here is a little tip for you, even if you come up with an idea on your own it can still violate a patent that was filed previously.
Where are you getting 10k psi from? And for your numbers concerning yield, what mass of CO2 did you use to achieve the yield? Yes, carbon dioxide alone has a much lower solubility for molecules with a high molar mass but that does not mean you cannot achieve the same end yields, it only means it takes more CO2.
Without a pump there is no way you maintained density and so a specific pressure and temp for the entire extraction and collection.
Concerning your use of cosolvents and some chemicals you mentioned: If you use a cosolvent with a vapor pressure lower than CO2 it will boil out after the carbon dioxide. This means that if you use something silly like hexane you are making a hexane extract and will have to purge your final extract more thoroughly. The same goes for pretty much every solvent you mention.
I do not say CO2 alone is best for end yield with least mass of solvent being used. The whole point is, if you use a cosolvent with a significantly lower vapor pressure than CO2 there is no point to using the CO2 unless it is to decrease flammability.
You have no clue what my most recent methods are, the links were to reference your copying of my concepts from awhile ago.
I guess for the record i will dispute you point by moot point.
Your use of cosolvents does not clear you of patent violation. It is my collection of passive extractions in particular that you are violating. If you think I am joking, by all means go ahead with what you are doing and I promise repercussions. Every promise I have made publicly, I have followed through with.
Here is a little tip for you, even if you come up with an idea on your own it can still violate a patent that was filed previously.
Where are you getting 10k psi from? And for your numbers concerning yield, what mass of CO2 did you use to achieve the yield? Yes, carbon dioxide alone has a much lower solubility for molecules with a high molar mass but that does not mean you cannot achieve the same end yields, it only means it takes more CO2.
Without a pump there is no way you maintained density and so a specific pressure and temp for the entire extraction and collection.
Concerning your use of cosolvents and some chemicals you mentioned: If you use a cosolvent with a vapor pressure lower than CO2 it will boil out after the carbon dioxide. This means that if you use something silly like hexane you are making a hexane extract and will have to purge your final extract more thoroughly. The same goes for pretty much every solvent you mention.
I do not say CO2 alone is best for end yield with least mass of solvent being used. The whole point is, if you use a cosolvent with a significantly lower vapor pressure than CO2 there is no point to using the CO2 unless it is to decrease flammability.
Please keep writing posts like the above. They make my task of discrediting you even easier.
jyndustriez
Member
Ok, I will take your extract challenge. Email me your phone number to [email protected]. We can talk and arrange a setting.
If you are serious I will arrange a competition within 4 months. I will even fly to California to make it easier on you, We can photo/videographically document everything that transpires.
I will make extracts using pure CO2, and even extracts at some mixture with a cosolvent you choose. You dont even have to tell me what solvents you want to add, surprise me.
Whatever you email me and I you, minus any identifying information, will be posted on the forums as well.
This is a serious offer, I am calling your bluff on the challenge.
If you are serious I will arrange a competition within 4 months. I will even fly to California to make it easier on you, We can photo/videographically document everything that transpires.
I will make extracts using pure CO2, and even extracts at some mixture with a cosolvent you choose. You dont even have to tell me what solvents you want to add, surprise me.
Whatever you email me and I you, minus any identifying information, will be posted on the forums as well.
This is a serious offer, I am calling your bluff on the challenge.