[rune]

stonedcold, on 24 April 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

Iky I would not use that type of Ethanol because it is Denatured with a benzene product to make it unfit for human ingestion.

Take a look at this PDF

True. I'd also look at the UK documentation as how alcohol is denatured and what with varies from country to country.

[sam-i-am]

I've made some this weekend with acetone

[Arthur Avalon]

TYS, on 24 April 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

What do you mean quality control? The companies selling them are registered bio fuel companies?? The Iso they sell is 99.9% pure and at just over £65 for 25litres delivered pretty damn cheap!

Is this the price at the auction sites?
If so, it's very good. The other link - above - shows 12L for just over £50, which is still better than Maplin, I suppose, but that's only coz Maplin have upped the price of 1L from £10 to £15 (I wonder why? )

[alanidlehands]

worzel, on 24 April 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

TYS, on 24 April 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

What do you mean quality control? The companies selling them are registered bio fuel companies?? The Iso they sell is 99.9% pure and at just over £65 for 25litres delivered pretty damn cheap!

Ok, that's good to know. Thanks I'll look into this.

I would still like to know about Hexane, if anyone can help?

Hexane behaves the same as butane in extraction as in it only reacts with the thc. It's something to do with polarity.
Simpson oil requires other extracts that hexane and butane leave behind.
Isoprophyl is better, it reacts with the veggie stuff that's needed in the Simpson recipe.
If you want to make some great (recreational)honey oil without the risk of butane, hexane is the choice.
If you need to make a Simpson style extract, then ISO or some high alcohol solvent should do the trick.
Some videos show the Simpson process with the mixture bubbling over heat, and it was suggested that this was an important part of the procedure.
I tinker around a bit, but a hot bubbling jar of iso fumes is too risky for me.

Have you seen the cannabis juicers? Fresh buds right into a juicer, drink the juice. Similar claims to Simpson.

[worzel]

I'm just getting ready for work but I wanted to say a quick thanks before I bugger off. The replies have provided a lot of useful info and i'll be researching more fully at the weekend. No doubt more questions will pop into my head!
Thanks, W.

[Graywolf]

alanidlehands, on 24 April 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

Hexane behaves the same as butane in extraction as in it only reacts with the thc. It's something to do with polarity.

Simpson oil requires other extracts that hexane and butane leave behind.
Isoprophyl is better, it reacts with the veggie stuff that's needed in the Simpson recipe.

Butane, Hexane, and the light Naphtha extraction that Rick Simpson demonstrates on his video, are a non polar extraction with a solvent that doesn't pick up water soluble non active ingredients like chlorophyll, etc. Rick Simpson actually touts the effectiveness of his non polar naphtha extractions and Naphtha is just Pentane and Hexane. Pentane is the simple 5 carbon chain Alkane that falls between Butanes four carbon chain and Hexanes six.

His 3 minute isopropyl and ethanol extraction are a polar solvent that does pick up water solubles. I have never heard him say that they were more effective, only that he was showing those methods because they all worked and almost anyone could do them.

The heat RS uses, is a rice cooker for cooking off the solvent. As a side effect, that would also decarboxylate the oil and make it orally active.

From my perspective, the fish trap exists because of the fish, and if you get the fish, the design of the fish trap is not of prime importance. If the fish is the cannabinoids, they are relatively non-polar, so Hexane works well.

If you think alcohol does a better job of extracting, I suggest that you dissolve cannabis essential oil in alcohol and then mix that with equal parts of water and Hexane and shake.

Let that stand for awhile and check back later and note which solvent ended up with the cannabinoids.

[alanidlehands]

Graywolf, on 25 April 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

alanidlehands, on 24 April 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

Hexane behaves the same as butane in extraction as in it only reacts with the thc. It's something to do with polarity.

Simpson oil requires other extracts that hexane and butane leave behind.
Isoprophyl is better, it reacts with the veggie stuff that's needed in the Simpson recipe.

Butane, Hexane, and the light Naphtha extraction that Rick Simpson demonstrates on his video, are a non polar extraction with a solvent that doesn't pick up water soluble non active ingredients like chlorophyll, etc. Rick Simpson actually touts the effectiveness of his non polar naphtha extractions and Naphtha is just Pentane and Hexane. Pentane is the simple 5 carbon chain Alkane that falls between Butanes four carbon chain and Hexanes six.

His 3 minute isopropyl and ethanol extraction are a polar solvent that does pick up water solubles. I have never heard him say that they were more effective, only that he was showing those methods because they all worked and almost anyone could do them.

The heat RS uses, is a rice cooker for cooking off the solvent. As a side effect, that would also decarboxylate the oil and make it orally active.

From my perspective, the fish trap exists because of the fish, and if you get the fish, the design of the fish trap is not of prime importance. If the fish is the cannabinoids, they are relatively non-polar, so Hexane works well.

If you think alcohol does a better job of extracting, I suggest that you dissolve cannabis essential oil in alcohol and then mix that with equal parts of water and Hexane and shake.

Let that stand for awhile and check back later and note which solvent ended up with the cannabinoids.

If you only catch a perch when you are fishing for a shark, I'm sure that would be a disappointment.
There have been and gone many disappointed makers and users of Simpson oil.
I think the idea is that pure thc is not the sole desired extract and that other beneficial elements are ignored by some solvents. Some makers will dump their weed into iso for days before processing. I use a large jar with a lid, and only a little iso, shake like mad for about a minute before filtering and evaporation. I was discovered with a growth on my prostate when I was only 33 years old. I'm tipping 50 now and still kicking, reckon I must be doing something right.
How do you feel about the 'juicers'? I reckon it must taste disgusting for a start, though if you rub some nice live charas and toke it, it is lovely.

[Graywolf]

alanidlehands, on 26 April 2012 - 12:23 AM, said:

There have been and gone many disappointed makers and users of Simpson oil.
I think the idea is that pure thc is not the sole desired extract and that other beneficial elements are ignored by some solvents. Some makers will dump their weed into iso for days before processing. I use a large jar with a lid, and only a little iso, shake like mad for about a minute before filtering and evaporation. I was discovered with a growth on my prostate when I was only 33 years old. I'm tipping 50 now and still kicking, reckon I must be doing something right.
How do you feel about the 'juicers'? I reckon it must taste disgusting for a start, though if you rub some nice live charas and toke it, it is lovely.

Good point that that we are looking for an entourage of terpenes, rather than just the diterpene THC!

The good news is that both the non polar simple alkanes butane and hexane extract those well, as does polar ethanol, and Isopropyl. Whether one does it better than the other, depends on whether the cannabinoids and other terpenes are in their carboxlyic acid forms, or decarboxylated forms.

The carboxylic acid forms are polar and the decarboxylated forms are non polar.

That doesn't mean that one or the other solvent doesn't get the job done, it just means it takes one more time than the other.

I am watching juicing with bait on my breath. We have one cancer patient that is trying it out and so far it has stopped his passing blood, but it is too early to tell the long range effects. We also just supplied him with 100 grams of Holy Shit, so the cause and effects may be muddled for a bit.

[jason24msc]

LIke Graywolf says; You can use polar solvents like ethanol or iso-propyl alcohol to make oil (these want to be pretty pure). You can also use Non polar solvents like Naptha, Hexane but Petroleum ether is the best of this class, mainly because Naptha and Hexane are known to cause cancer and have impurities in them which are also cancerous, so using any of these solvents would create more risk in itself. The alcohols are generally easier to get hold of and purer but watch out for naked flames.
I personally don't believe that using an alcohol like iso propyl alcohol or ethanol will cause a change in the chemical structure of any of the cannabinoids, because people working in the laboratories I have worked in have used alcohol solvents to solvate hashish and extract through a silica column and there are two major fractions seperated, THC and CBD, which shows that the solvent has not changed the structure of the cannabinoids at any point.
Cancer Patients in the Hospital our group worked in conjunction with were given oil tinctures to swallow, refined in this way and mixed with olive oil.

[Our Man In Malana]

TYS, on 24 April 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

rune, on 24 April 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

However, that 0.1% impurity could still be toxic. Evaporation of the solvent may leave a concentrated amount of the impurities behind. Is it not better to find a source that is listed for use in items that will be consumed?

Its actually water...

You can get IPA in higher purities: 99.99%, 99.999% etc., but you'll pay for it - look for "laboratory grade".

TYS is right - IPA, like ethanol, absorbs atmospheric water vapour - that's why it's expensive making ethanol over 96%, or IPA over 99.9%. Water ain't great in hash or oil, but it isn't toxic.

[sam-i-am]

Graywolf, on 25 April 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

The heat RS uses, is a rice cooker for cooking off the solvent. As a side effect, that would also decarboxylate the oil and make it orally active.

The temp of the mix would only go slightly above the bp of the solvent. Would it be hot enough? I've used acetone (56-57 C) and iso propyl alcohol (82.5 C) and the oils only became stonedy if I purposely decarboxylated the weed in an oven first at 105 for 20 mins

[Graywolf]

sam-i-am, on 04 May 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

Graywolf, on 25 April 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

The heat RS uses, is a rice cooker for cooking off the solvent. As a side effect, that would also decarboxylate the oil and make it orally active.

The temp of the mix would only go slightly above the bp of the solvent. Would it be hot enough? I've used acetone (56-57 C) and iso propyl alcohol (82.5 C) and the oils only became stonedy if I purposely decarboxylated the weed in an oven first at 105 for 20 mins

Simpson adds water to run the temperature up to 100C/212F, which does decarboxylate the material at very close to the same rate it also converts the existing THC to CBN, so you end up with a flat curve.

That is a good point though; to achieve optimum THC levels, you have to decarboxylate at hotter temperatures for a shorter period of time. Note from the attached curve that optimum is achieved at about 70% decarboxylation, after which the THC to CBN conversion significantly exceeds the rate of conversion of THCA to THC, so the curve drops sharply.

Attached thumbnail(s)

• 

Attached File(s)

•  Decarboxylation graph-reduced.pdf (160.93K)
  Number of downloads: 772

This post has been edited by Graywolf: 04 May 2012 - 02:59 PM

[jason24msc]

[/quote]

Note from the attached curve that optimum is achieved at about 70% decarboxylation, after which the THC to CBN conversion significantly exceeds the rate of conversion of THCA to THC, so the curve drops sharply.
[/quote]

Graywolf, the graph you attached shows the breakdown of THC at various temperatures, not the effect of temperature on decarboxylation. The Y-axis says THC and not THCA.

[Graywolf]

Not so bro, though I read it again and understand why you might get that impression. The graph is intended to show the THC conversion rates from THCA and different temperatures.

[DANZIG]

Graywolf, on 04 May 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

Simpson adds water to run the temperature up to 100C/212F, which does decarboxylate the material at very close to the same rate it also converts the existing THC to CBN, so you end up with a flat curve.

I agree with Jason that the graph is a bit crap, where do you get the references to THC-A and CBN conversion from that graph when they aren't even mentioned?

If the cannabis has been decarboxylated prior to extraction then the phytocannabinoid (e.g. THC-A ) produced by the plant will be converted to THC, decarboxylation does not converts the existing THC to CBN


I decarboxylate at 106 degrees C for 25 minutes and I use an accurate oven thermometer to ensure the correct temperature

As for the juicers, what do they think the phytoncannabinoids they are consuming are actually doing?