Welcome to UK420

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.


Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
grobag

Hash Screen Sizes

39 posts in this topic

Fair enough Madgiz, I just read through that and it is a sound recipe for an isomerised 'naphtha' type oil, but that is niether what people see as 'Budda' nor a particularly effective method. It definately wouldn't achieve the claims of 99% THC purity.

I posted This thread a few days back to partly explain the misconceptions. But I'll expand a few points here to explain the blokes' recipe above though.

Firstly, and I think most importantly as I see it as his big mistake, the initial solvent used is xylene. I've not used it personally as a solvent before, but from what I can gather, it is a term used for 3 benzene dirivatives that attach to the Methyl group. In which case I have experience in a similar solvent, MethylEthyl Ketone. The stronger solvents like this, like the alcohol based solvents, strip out much from the plant aswell as the cannabinoids (see things I've written on IPA oil and QWISO). You can use solvents like what we call white spirits in this country as it is virtually 100% naphtha which is a petroleum ether. It is that type of solvent I assume is being used above.

Like I say, they are fine used as solvents but when trying to make claims of purity, especially bold ones in the top end 90%'s, the chemistry falls down and it remains just theory I'm affraid.

Basically, the recipe above shows an extraction and then isomerising the oil, great. But the claims are that the isomerisation process cleans the oil up from 70% to 99% purity which is a physical impossibility. It really does look like a muddle of a few stats and methods, put into a theory (and even the oil made maybe) and then silly bold claims made about it. The isomerisation process changes the chemical composition of the cannabinoids within the oil granted so that 99% of the cannabinoids become high rotating THC's, but isomerisation doesn't purify the oil of it's already extracted impurities and niether do any steps of the recipe above address this crucial point.

Now I agree that the initial reading of his oil extracted using the xylene would come out at about 70%, but we are talking 70% cannabinoids and 30% contaminates in the form of waxes, tars, chlorophyll etc. Not 70% THC with other cannabinoids making up the remaining 30%. He doesn't get the difference it seems.

If he were to use butane or hexane as the initial solvent, then isomerised the remains, he would then achieve what he is claiming if done right, like I explain in the thread I link to above. As butane is far more selective with what it extracts from the plant matter, the resulting oil comes out in the 90% THC levels which is what is required before isomerisation if 99% THC is to be anywhere near attained.

As for Budda, given the various reports I have read about it, it is butane extracted oil. Totally different from the above recipe. Once the budda/ or BHO has been extracted but before the solvent has been entirely evaporated, the oil is whipped up and subjected to a process by which air is whipped into it and any remaining solvents forced out. This is then meant to be better than plain BHO because of the air content. Hence it becomes Budda. I again contend this, 'cos I'm an awkward bugger, and instead maintain that if you use the freeze purging method I explain In This Post and in others including the thread I link into in my signature, and just be a little patient for a week or two before smoking, then the resulting oil would run against budda any day of the week. ;) You can't skip or speed up the cure into hours no matter how hard you try.

I don't mean to totally slag off the above recipe you've posted there Madgiz, far from it as like I say it is a good recipe for isomerisation alone if an easier solvent was used instead of xylene - IPA even for ease (but the same kind of oil would result). There's more than one way to cook an egg eh? But I just had to pull up the claims made as it's not right to have false information posted and not contended like. I'd love for somebody to try and prove me wrong - that's the whole idea, that'd be great.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

Well thats cleared that one up.... Thanks grobag ;)

Share this post


Link to post
17. budder is whipping air and freezing isomerizied oil. Please note i read TUG's thread here and at reeferman's. the process is right, but budder is not made from bho, it's made from isomerized bho. big difference in quality and kind of high. DA kine had the iso budder. this is the secret step. making bho look like budder is not enough.

I think what's confusing the issue is that freeze purging/air-whipping ISOMERIZED BHO seems to be what this budder king bloke is touting as his budder/budda - not just 'air whipped' BHO....

Edited by Blabblabberbab

Share this post


Link to post
Well thats cleared that one up.... Thanks grobag ;)

Well, not really. In the recipe above he says the following statements in his descriptions:

isomerizised oil is almost 99% pure thc, even shake becomes this strong. bho is about 70% thc, bubble hash from buds 30/50%, white russian 22%; obviously the difference between chemical extraction / enrichment of thc Vs. the thc content of trichome, origins of crystal, etc. anyway the science:

and....

17. budder is whipping air and freezing isomerizied oil. Please note i read TUG's thread here and at reeferman's. the process is right, but budder is not made from bho, it's made from isomerized bho. big difference in quality and kind of high. DA kine had the iso budder. this is the secret step. making bho look like budder is not enough.

But the first point isn't a full enough statement to explain that his earlier estimates are actually then wrong. It's a confused oxymoron, kind of like a bit of knowledge causing problems.

Then the second point contradicts what I say about budda. He states that it is actually whipped isomerised oil of any origin rather than plain BHO. This I can't argue as I've never claimed to make budda, I'm just going by popular concensus and what has been mostly posted about it. If he is correct and it is actually isomerised oil that people are forwarding as budda, then they really could do with a shake up of their process and just combine the BHO and isomerisation and bingo. Forget the air whipping as silly for the time being. ;)

My main reason for saying this is that through isomerisation they convert all the cannabinoids to THC. There is then no point whatsoever in using a less selective solvent which extracts contaminates with the cannabinoids. You might employ such solvents to obtain a blanket range of cannabinoids in the oil as that is what you are after, but through isomerisation afterwards you convert all of these into THC anyway so there becomes no point. You are far better starting off with an oil (BHO) which is both purer with hardly any contaminates and already has a higher level of the THC's you are trying to obtain. It makes life so much easier!

Therefore, I contend that there is no point isomerising oils made from anything other than Butane unless you are just trying to clean up an already extracted oil. You may aswell just make BHO and isomerise it for better results and less faffing about. The end result will be the same psychoactivity wise; the BHO isomerised oil will just be purer. Again I state that only through isomerising BHO can you achieve 99% THC purity.

Edited by grobag
Spelling!

Share this post


Link to post

Continuing with the theme of this particular thread I could make a dry sifter system with a couple of the screens mentioned above and show how I do it.

Or I could do anything else that you might want to see done to clear up anything that isn't quite clear. Just let me know eh and I'll get on it shortly.

:guitar:

Hello Grobag,Great thread! I'd be most interested in a dry sift thread and would deffo contribute myself when I get a new DigiCam if ya need input! Keep up the good work! Resinator ;)

post-29988-1206668623_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Grobag,

Thanks so much for all of the incredible information you have given us! I'm getting ready to start producing hash and am leaning towards sifting very heavily. With the info you have provided (as well as another thread around here about a home made tumbler), I think I'll build my own tumbler instead of buying a pollinator.

cheers!

post-31962-1209279810_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

hey well done for all your good work explaining hashes.

i would love to see a fully explained DRY SIFT with pics would be excelent.

Share this post


Link to post

Whats the best screen size for dry sifting? A good all rounder?

:cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Whats the best screen size for dry sifting? A good all rounder?

:yep:

If only using one screen, with different rubs of varying ferocity, I'd go for a 135m screen. For two screens, however, I'd opt for a 150m and a 72m.

Happy Hashing.

post-5967-1186235714.gif

lol

Share this post


Link to post

I notice in the quote^ it mentions " rubs of varying ferocity", does this actually mean rubbing the weed against the screen or rubbing the weed above the screen?.

Share this post


Link to post
I notice in the quote^ it mentions " rubs of varying ferocity", does this actually mean rubbing the weed against the screen or rubbing the weed above the screen?.

I mean rubbing against the screen. But by 'varying ferocity' I mean a first rub which is just a shake on the screen without actually rubbing it. Collect that up and then be a bit more vigorous by actually rubbing it against the screen. With the second rub you'll obviously get a bit of plant matter going through with the resin, but you also get out as much resin as possible. The first 'rub' will be a lot cleaner and stronger as it will just be the broken off capitate resin heads that get through mainly as you are not breaking up the plant or rubbing it against the screen, just tumbling it over the top gently.

lol

Share this post


Link to post

Can I just use a 43T silk screen to make a good niceings hashings. I am skint and can find only this style cheaps. :unsure::unsure:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

Yes you can  :unsure:

I use a 43T on a alloy frame and it works sweet...

Mrm :unsure:

Edited by Mr Mullen
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Madgiz posted up a link in a thread which had some great information in it, so rather than it be lost or hard to find I've written it up here in a table for easy reference.

When making your own hash and making your own equipment first aswell before starting on the hash, it is best to buy a screen or two and either dry sift through them or use them as a filter for bubble hash. Different people have different preferences for screen sizes when making hash but these are mine, so you have a rough guideline as to what you want to buy. For bubble hash; if only using one screen to filter and one to catch then I'd go for 220 microns(m) and 25m respectively (like two Bubble Bags to get the most hash, add a 73m for three screens) but if say using 7 screens then I'd go for 220, 170, 160, 120, 73, 45, 25m (again like bubble bags). For dry sifting I use different sizes of screens. If only using one screen, with different rubs of varying ferocity, I'd go for a 135m screen. For two screens, however, I'd opt for a 150m and a 72m. Then vary it again for more screens respectively. Bare in mind that with the smallest size bubble bag you are catching resin on top of it without it falling through, but with dry sifting the smallest screen lets through the resin onto a collection tray. Anyway, enough waffle, here's the info:

Threads per cm: Mesh(microns): Thread(microns): Open Area(%): Price per m(£):

43 T....................150....................80.......................43.....................8.75

48 T....................135....................70.......................43.....................10.58

61 T....................92......................64.......................34.....................14.12

77 T....................72......................55.......................27.....................15.68

Mesh = open hole size.

Generally, when buying Bubble Bags/Sacs, sifting boxes, crystal catchers etc, they tell you the screen sizes in microns (of the mesh), but when you buy screens from art shops, printers suppliers etc they give the sizes by the thread count. So the above table makes things easier when it comes to ordering your own screen to make hash making machines/ screens. I'll pin this thread aswell for quick and easy reference.

Happy Hashing.

post-5967-1186235714.gif

Hi Grobag/-

Looked all over the web and searched uk420, but I can't find anywhere with prices like above - cheapest I can find is 43t monofilament at about 22 quid plus postage per metre (x ~1.2m).

Can anyone offer a friendly pointer in the right direction?

Cheers! Be well ',;~}~

Share this post


Link to post
Looked all over the web and searched uk420, but I can't find anywhere with prices like above - cheapest I can find is 43t monofilament at about 22 quid plus postage per metre (x ~1.2m).

Can anyone offer a friendly pointer in the right direction?

Cheers! Be well ',;~}~

Google Selectasine Serigraphics Ltd

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0