Thanks for thinking of me, man. I’m going to have to read through all of that, several times.

I’ve got lots of ideas, don’t want to waste my limited ability to contribute by re-inventing the wheel.

There is so much we still don’t know, need to confirm, can extend or deepen.

This tek can do so much more than just produce high purity end product.

Re: Solvent

I’m currently using Klean Strip MEK Substitute (according to MSDS, 100% EA, whatever 100% means - even the highest grades of lab EA make no such claim). http://media.lifeandhome...s/865/42691843_MSDS.pdf

One of the big box stores carries Jasco MEK Substitute, which seems to be produced by same company as Klean Strip version (MSDS link online shows gibberish when I open it, and although burried deeply on the back of the can is mention of EA, there is no claim of purity). https://production-s3.wm...o_MEK_Substitute_EN.pdf

I’ve read on another site that some versions of “MEK Substitute” contain completely different solvents. http://www.sciencemadnes...ewthread.php?tid=157049

I’m not that concerned about Klean Strip, and I do have access to lab grade EA. if anyone has a readable MSDS of the Jasco version, please post a link or file. My primary concern about EA, like all solvents, is heavy metal content; which apparently is not required to be listed on MSDS; but any additional info would be appreciated.

Jasco MEK substitute SDS attached (has "100.0%" EA). I've done CIELO with this brand and have gotten great results. It evaped cleanly. I'm personally not worried about metal content. I do avoid eating fish because of metal content concerns, but I don't avoid or have worries over a few hundred mg of mescaline citrate from EA. That's just me though.

I made the 69ron paste from 200g of cactus powder. It was relatively hard, almost a workout for my arm.

It took me over 40 minutes to mix, compared to 40g which takes me about 12 minutes to mix.

I'm not totally convinced that the last 50g of powder were adequately mixed. To be fair I was using a small spoon to do the mixing. This spoon works fine with 40g of cactus powder. Perhaps I should be using a bigger spatula or something

I split up this paste in two and will be doing a room temp EA vs chilled EA extraction.

Same powder or different batch? If new, you may need a different amount of water. Like I said before, I worry your earlier paste needed less water.

Thanks Loveall

HLP,

When you get a chance, please specify pull method: number of pulls, solvent volume per pull, mix time, rest time.

Thx

Loveall, this is a different batch. I'm onto Peruvian Torch now (previous batch was San Pedro; 1st batch with the goo was Bridgsii). Yes I definitely hear you regarding using less water, but I would just like to try a couple more times with the 69ron ratios in the event I simply messed something up earlier due to an error on my part. If I continue to get the similar results I will reduce the water as per your recommendation.

Cheelin, for both room temp and cold EA I will be doing an identical strategy: 150g of EA per pull, for a total of 6 pulls. Each pull will be 1 minute of moderately aggressive stirring following by 2 minutes rest. I know that this goes against the recommended tek where cold EA has just 1 minute pull with non-aggressive stirring and with no rest, but I would like to try to keep all the variables the same to just weed out if there is a difference in yield between cold EA and room temp EA.

My last experiment on San Pedro showed a big increase in yield when I stopped using the microwave. I want to see if cold vs room temp EA makes another difference.

Ok, what I think is that your first Bridge powder may have needed less water. This new powder you are using may need more water if it remains hard to stir after reacting with lime.

I think the apriori amount of water is not what we should stick to, instead we should shoot for a paste that has a particular consistency: wet enough to be moist and easy to stir after reacting with the lime, but dry enough that it sands firm on its own when shaped with a knife/spoon. For some cactus powers, this could be the 69ron rations. For other powders it could be less or more water.

HLP, I hear you. I just wanted to know what the method is for the chilled run, so that I can compare your results with similar runs that i’m doing.

I’m currently half-way done pulling 4 diff methods: std + chilled, 1min stir w/wo 2 min rest; std + mw + chilled, 1 min stir w/wo 2 min rest.

Perhaps we could determine a correct density for the paste to easily yield xtals rather than goo?

To test this theory, we could each mix something like 25 grams cactus paste and measure the resulting volume.

Please propose a method using the standard process. I will be making paste for twelve 15g runs in the next several days; if the process is quick and easy, I will measure some/all.

Mix the paste, then weigh some quantity such as a 1/4 of a cup (using a 1/4 cup measuring cup as it should be easy to fill evenly). Before reporting results, calibrate your measuring cup by filling with water and weighing.

One concern I have is that it is not perfectly obvious to me what the consistency of my paste should be, based on the descriptions that you guys have talked about. Using the 69ron ratio is easy because it is totally unambiguous.

If there was something we could measure, such as using the 69ron ratio, or using shroombee's 1/4 measuring cup density test, that was consistent across everyone's paste, that would be great.

I’m all for trying to quantify things, and will do what Shroombee suggested.

But, do you guys know what playdough looks like? That’s what my crystal-producing “paste” looks like.

How bout grits? Mashed potatoes? Polenta? All close enough.


Regular, creamy, or al dente?

Mashed potatoes for me

Playdough seems dryer. Gonna try that to.

Hopefully there is a big window from Playdough to Mashed Potatoes. Don't want wetter than that I think. Grits could be a risk of too wet...

Al dente



https://youtu.be/OdCRRc9zlas

I just did the extraction from splitting the non-microwaved 69ron paste in half, and doing one with room temp EA and one with cold EA. I only lost 9.7% EA, on BOTH. In my previous experiments, I lost between 17% and 25%.

I have three alternate hypotheses: 1) I'm simply getting better over time at making the paste and the paste-making process has a material effect on EA recovery, 2) microwaving leads to less EA recovery, 3) Peruvian Torch leads to a less loss compared to San Pedro which leads to a less loss compared to Bridgsii

It makes me wonder: for our experiments, should we be correcting our yield calculation based on EA recovered? For example, say you want to compare microwaved to nonmicrowaved. You have to make two different pastes, obviously. Maybe you do a better job at one paste over the other in terms of how purposeful you mix the paste, and perhaps this leads to a greater recovery of EA in one batch over the other. If you don't account for this, then your yield might be misleading. Of course, if microwaving vs not microwaving had a material effect on the amount of EA recovered, then it would be fair to not correct for the amount of EA recovered.

Do you see what I mean? In my past experiments I was comparing yield from one batch with a 25% loss of EA against another batch with a 17% loss of EA. Is it really fair to not correct for this?

I totally forgot to do Shrombee's 1/4 cup density test! Too bad.

Your 90+% recovery matches every run (27 so far) i’ve made since getting up the learning curve, i’ve run 2 types SP and 1 PT, all variations.

I would lean toward better pull technique, maybe something to do with pastemaking, but i doubt it.

My bet is that better pastemaking drives crystals vs crap; better pulls drives consistently 90+% solvent recovery, more yield crystals or crap, better filtering drives crystal vs crap. Simpler: pastemaking and filtering drive quality, pulls drive quantity, imo.

I would think loss of EA recovery would have a lot to do with water content of the paste? The drier the paste the more EA is absorbed, perhaps?
Mescaline content obviously wont change percentage wise, so you could easily correct this with more pulls if the EA recovery is lower than it should be.

So I would agree with Cheelin "I would lean toward better pull technique, maybe something to do with pastemaking".

And who's using lab filters vs coffee filters? -this is something I haven't seen discussed yet although I doubt its making much difference.