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.

Very useful, cheers grobag.

Excellent - nice one G

....now hows about that budder tutorial

B

What would you like me to do as I'm just about to have a load of trim again? I'm not a budder maker by what I think it is. Basically, as far as I can gather, budder is BHO whipped up so that it has air in it. Basically just a process by which some people purge the BHO of any remaining solvent and not actually changing the composition in any way. I use time and freezing instead.

I could do a few different tutorials though on stuff I've not posted up on here before. I'm settled again now I've moved, sorted my internet access, sorted my camera and will shortly have a whack of trim to play with, so I could do one or two pictoral run throughs of processes that would be most helpful to people. What ones do you reckon? I'll put them into/ and carry on with "Grobag's Hash Thread" linked in my signature if I do.

I get the impression that quite a few people are trying out various IPA oil runs. Although it really isn't my prefered oil and I've already written up my QWISO method without any pictures, I could make a batch of that and post it up.

Plus I've had a play with isomerisation recently so I could do one on that. The only thing is that it's a bit more dangerous (due to strong acids/alkalines being used) and a bit more advanced so I don't think that many people would try it. It basically changes the composition of the cannabinoids so that you get more of the better THC molecules. Again I've basically described the process in my thread already.

Alternatively I could continue with the carbon filtering attempted in the thread already. I've ironed out the wrinkles from the problems experienced in that thread with the addition of a carbon water filter you get in Britta style filter jugs. A stroke of genious if I may say so myself. So I could show the filtering of BHO further into a very pale, near white colour. Plus if I made a batch of IPA oil I could carbon filter that and make cherry oil which many people may remember from years back or seen on their travels etc.

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.

Hi mate - nah the budder thing was sparked off in a recent news thread (budder & cheese worrying police in Canada)

HMT seems to have produced 'budder' but there seems to be a bit of uncertainty about the actual processes after making BHO from high Q bud.

It's the heating of oil in a bain-marie then 'air whipping' i.e. scraping it all up that constitutes what's known as 'budder' in his eyes - but that dosn't sound anything close to the 'isomerisation' process which seems to be involved when you read other articles. Obviously I might have got it arse about face, but it's very difficult to track down much relevant info that's in stoner friendly bite sized nuggets not mad chemistry....

Just interested is all

B

e2a - just read your post properly - it's the isomerisation process that I can't find canna specific info on. I hear you that not many would try it in practise - so is it worth it.... but damn interesting to read about if you did

Cherry oil from IPA extraction sounds really interesting (Brita-I-up!) and more dry sifting shenanigannery (techniques and screen size etc) would be ace - the turkish method you've described is invaluable

You should say that the mesh = the open hole size in microns.

I've edited the first post. Cheers OT.

Here's a link to when I describe the process but not any pictures I'm afraid: Isomerisation

When I get some trim I'll have a play about and take some photos for writing up some different stuff for my thread.

Nice cheers G

hey Grobag! just another micron/mesh size/thread enquiry here....

I can get screen from the factory i work in, I've been using the same few metres for years to make dry sift.. I've always thought it was 104 microns... But recently i've noticed all the screens made up are marked either 90T or 110T... Is this too small a hole for most trichs? The weave does seem a lot finer than in the mesh i have at home...

Basically i'm just wondering if dry sifting would work ok with the 90T/110T stuff or would it be more suited to catch the small trichs when making bubble?

Cheers Stonehenge

I'm not exactly sure but my guess would be that the open space between the threads would be just too small. You'll problably get resin through it but lots more resin will be left behind aswell. You're right though that they'd be handy for bubble collection.

Cheers Grobag!

Cool Slaine, no need to warp spasm eh! I like the avatar mate.

Seriously though, with the really fine meshes you will sift off only the finest resin plus a bit of dust with minimal plant matter coming through (with a 90/110T mesh I'm talking) so the resulting hash will be of a high quality. But when you are dealing with mesh sizes that small you need to consider the actual resin head sizes. The capitate heads you're collecting really do vary in size with maturity and the strain of plant you are growing. If you are only collecting resin from sativa plants, they are palnts you've grown before and made hash with before, and you know a bit about them; you may find that the 90T mesh is exactly what you are looking for. However, if growing a Dutch hybrid Indica strain then I doubt that it'd be the most effective mesh size to use.

I've grown a few strains recently that have come from OldTimer's lines rather than the usual Dutch genetics and due to their sativa leanings they do have very small resin heads in many phenotypes. Size is by no means an indicator of strength by the way . As a result, when sifting nicely dried bud/trim, you require a smaller sized mesh (ie higher thread count or 'T'). That said though I personally still wouldn't go as low as 90T, or as far as 110T, even with such plants unless it was a brief shake for the finest before moving on to a bigger mesh (lower thread count) or oiling the remains.

Just to give a better answer than my basic one in the wee hours eh . It's good to discuss specifics like this I reckon, to clarify it all.

First one to comment on it! I'd rather have your avatar than Slaine in my living room mind
i'm growing hybrids so the 90t will have to wait! Do want to try some sats next though.. so i'll probably liberate a bit of screen for that..
Cheers again mate...
Stonehenge

Do you mean this one....



Just looking through some old files...

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.

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

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....

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


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.

[/quote]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.


[/quote]

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
Click to view attachment

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!

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.

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

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.