Anyone else seen this yet (Oil in canned butane)

[Intoxicus5]

Hey Konrad,
I would recommend absolutes.
A concrete still has a significant percentage of plant waxes and fats that your lungs can not absorb. They coat your lungs until aspirated(coughed out) which is where the can't breathe feeling is coming from. Those fats and waxes are removed in winterization.

It's funny that some people are getting all panicked and hyped up about this MO thing. The fats and waxes in a concrete are more likely to be worrisome than contaminants at extremely low ppm and ppb levels.

 

[mda232]

try winterizing Konrad, whoever told you it makes it taste "bad" gave you misinformation.

 

[whiteberrieS]

Havent tried it yet but these guys have the absolute filters for 10 bucks. 1 micron absolute filters = winterization eliminated.

edit: or not. how pure might a winterized absolute be? Getting one of those filters for the next hash run, gonna get Everclear and that filter when I have enough trim.

 

[jump117]

Activated carbon from the pharmacy, crushed pills, 10g.

Were piled in a thermos and chilled in the freezer, along with a can of butane.
Butane was poured into a thermos with coal and stir 5 minutes,
then was poured through a single coffee filter in a glass teapot, from which was evaporated.
In a kettle was added ethanol, rinsed and poured into a bowl of white glass.
After evaporation of ethanol on the plate were barely noticeable stains.

I was unable to collect them with a razor, it was only a tiny amount of coal dust, which I blew away, on the razor was nothing left.

 

[SkyHighLer]

Nice jump117! I had some very old PUR Ultimate kitchen water faucet filters and shot a can of Gasone 'butane fuel' through one into a Mason jar. Smells much better, seems to be less oily residue, but I seem to be pulling something from the filter assembly that adds a yellow tinted residue. I got less yellow stuff the second time with the same filter and another whole can of Gasone. Still too much yellow, I need to pick up some finely powdered activated charcoal/carbon...should I get some bentonite also? GW mentioned it, and I've been waiting to hear more before investing the time and money on bulk purchases. Pharmacy huh? Wouldn't have crossed my mind...

 

[KonradZuse]

Hey Konrad,
I would recommend absolutes.
A concrete still has a significant percentage of plant waxes and fats that your lungs can not absorb. They coat your lungs until aspirated(coughed out) which is where the can't breathe feeling is coming from. Those fats and waxes are removed in winterization.

It's funny that some people are getting all panicked and hyped up about this MO thing. The fats and waxes in a concrete are more likely to be worrisome than contaminants at extremely low ppm and ppb levels.

Yeah, I mentioned that, I just haven't tried to winterize yet.


It's not just the MO thing which is turning into a joke I'VE ALWAYS felt meh about BHO. My coughing definitely has increased and TBH, my tolerance and shit as well.

I enjoy vaping bud much better now.



To everyone else, I will try to do some runs on my own when I am able to, but I want to do them right if I'm going back to BHO.



















Also why is MO starting shit with Gray Wolf on Facebook?


It's like Gray Wolf didn't only get the data to and from them faster, but he has everything he needs. Others tried talking shit on Gray Wolf too. I put them in their place. These mofos WANT TO FIND SOMETHING WRONG.... THAT IS ALL!!!

SO according to MO Gray Wolf just guessed, and all of his data was "False-Positives." so he wants a person to check results, instead of a machine? kk.....

Mystery Oil shared a link.
September 15
I am having a hard time communicating with GW in his forum--or at least he is not understanding me. So, I will respond here to his points and then he can join the discussion here, if he would like, in a more open manner (criticisms and questions are welcome). Thanks GW and Skunkpharm.

GW: Why can you say what you want about the quality of my work, yet that same privilege is proscribed for me???

MO: I am here for you, questions and criticisms. I love to learn; and the "pressure/challenge" of explaining myself and being questioned creates an environment of growth. Please, critique and question at will.

GW: I would be more accepting of you talking to the lab I use, on the samples that I had run, and making statements about the accuracy, if you actually talked to the person who managed the analysis, who is on vacation and hasn’t been present all week.

MO: I did talk with Marty. He said he would be leaving the project with a colleague (AJ) while he is on vacation. He said my samples would be worked by him as well. AJ has your data and mine. Are you suggesting that AJ is inferior to Marty. It may be so, but they are working as colleagues at the same lab. Marty trusted AJ, so I do, too. Makes sense if you trust Marty.

GW: I also question why it is so important to you that my analysis is wrong, and brought about this confrontation.

MO: I never once stated that your analysis is wrong. I said the tests were automated and that a chemist (Marty or AJ) would have to do a manual review of the contents to check for accuracy. Why would I state that the lab and TIC were wrong and then turn around and order the same tests at $250/piece?

GW: Your focus on the accuracy of something measured in parts per billionth, when the real issue is there anything in there close to permissible exposure limits is the real question.
The answer thus far is no, by several orders of magnitude, so is the debate equivalent to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pen?

MO: I never disagreed that each component within the MO is low with regard to exposure limits. But, I don't agree with downplaying its potential health risks based on a TENTATIVE report. More importantly, for the sake of the patients, erring on the side of caution when stating opinion about the safety of a product is the safest bet. Stating that you "will hence forth vacuum distill all butane, regardless of [its] source, before using it in our extraction process" and then turning around and stating that you "continue to use the oil in [your] stash made before [you] discovered MO", is confusing and irresponsible. You have a TIC report (T is for TENTATIVE) and you collected a little bit of MO (but cannot tell me if you accurately weighed it) and you feel comfortable telling your large and captive audience at Skunkpharm that it is probably safe 'cause of the low rate it will be at in BHO?

GW: Until you attacked the credibility of my work, I was willing to let you say anything you wanted and just let the final results speak for themselves. I would still like to do that, if you will stop second guessing things about my experiments that you aren’t in a position to know, and posting them on line.
Please do run your own experiments, and you are welcome that I turned you onto a lab equipped to do the analysis. I will continue to run mine, and if the end results disagree, that is the time to attack my credibility with facts.

MO: Again, I have not attacked your credibility. I explained my understanding of the TIC report as explained by several chemists and I asked you about your methods of collecting and weighing the Lucienne Mystery Oil. If anything I have tried to add to your "credibility" by sharing your posts on my page. Reminder: I am running my own experiments. Why do you think you started running yours? (;

GW: I didn’t say that you’ve out lived your welcome, because I wouldn’t have ever allowed what you posted to be visible to the readership, if I didn’t think what you had to say was important for them to hear.

MO: No worries. I didn't feel unwelcome.

GW: That doesn’t mean that I endorse everything that you have to say, or that I will stand by and say nothing.

MO: I know you have a brain of your own and that you are not mute.

GW: I salute you for discovering Mystery Oil and your efforts to make the public aware of it, but please also consider that I also have the responsibility to insure that our readership has facts to go with the hearsay and opinions, especially when they may not agree.

MO: I don't need a salute. Is this what this is about for you? This is not my discovery. It has been known about for years; it was just not given any attention until now. Thanks, but, no thanks on the 'salute'. Reserve it for the patients who felt the responsibility to share the MO page with their friends.

GW: You can leave or stay as you like, and since I will be gone a week for vacation, perhaps you will have some test results when I return and we can discuss any disparities.

MO: Discuss? You mean like where you selectively moderate the discussion in your forum? No, thanks. There shouldn't be discrepancies anyway, we are working with the same labs. The only discrepancy so far is in the amount of weight we collected per can (in the end, with BHO tests, that wont matter anyway).

GW: No one disagrees that when you are measuring in Parts Per Billionth, that there is room for error. How large is that error vis a vis anything that makes any difference at anywhere near those levels is perhaps the question you might give further consideration ?

MO: I was not referring to the ppb/ppm. I was referring to the fact that the list does have false-positives on it and those needed to be manually "weeded out".


GW: What I don’t agree with is that my report was simply an automated run without any confirmation.
There are 51 more pages that you haven’t seen, which Marty and I went over trying to guess where they may have come from.

MO: Sounds like the beginning of the manual review I am talking about. All I know is, there is more work to be done, per AJ, in order to narrow the results down.

GW: Pick a constitute and I’ll publish the page for the mass spectrometer peak that showed up on, I just don’t have the time, room, or inclination to publish them all, when there presence is moot at the levels indicated, and they are in a concentrated sample, not the original butane or the end medication.

MO: That is fine. Probably would be a waste of time. Especially on the ones with low 'response time', as these are probably some of the 'false-positives'.

GW: Marty should be back from vacation by my return, and be able to defend the difference between our conversation and the one you had with someone else at the same lab. I suggest that before reporting to the world on open forum, as you have done, that the actual professional who was involved be allowed voice.

MO: If what I stated is wrong then Marty would want to take that up with AJ; the one he entrusted this project to while gone.

GW: I would also like to continue my own experimentation without being forced into taking a position until the facts are in.

MO: I never use force. Please, point to where force has come into play?

GW: I published the list, replete with CAS#’s for anyone to be able to identify any components at levels that exceed current limits. I immediately checked on the obvious, but confess to not having had the time to follow up on each and every one yet. One of the reasons that I published it, was to give anyone the smoking gun, who wants ammunition to shout concern to the roof tops.
So far no one has shouted out, and I would also like to wait and see what happens there. If there are alarms noted, I want to follow up on those as well.

MO: Awesome! Thank-you for all that you have done.

GW: In a nutshell, I saw too many surprises during research before retirement, to take a solid position until the facts are all in. Especially with public announcements that better damn well be supported with more than hearsay if it ends up in a libel suit.

MO: That is cool. You have been directly involved with research that ended in libel suits? Who fucked up? What field of research did you work in?

GW: If we can agree to keep the discovery and brainstorming separate from judiciary evaluation, we can work more closely together, but not if you continue to discredit my findings, without having concurrently providing findings of equal validity and support.

MO: Judicial evaluation? Huh? Again, I HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO DISCREDIT YOUR FINDINGS. I asked questions that related to my findings. Like you stated earlier. When our findings differ, we will get together. That is what we did. I asked you how you collected so little MO from 72 cans of Lucienne when I was collecting much more, and you said you could have made an error based on your processes; and looking at the second pic of the bottom of your collection vessel, it appeared you had collected more than just .158g of MO. And I left it at that. As in, I figured you were in error and the .158g for 72 cans was a bad number.

GW: Till then, hoping you have a productive week and have lots of analytical data to share soon.

MO: A productive week to you as well. Thank-you for the posts on cleaning the N-tane. I know several producers making the change currently; MUCH LOVE FOR THAT!

 

[prune]

Ya, my laboratory analysis of MO came back and he's a 99% blowtard who is just in this for the "five dollar" argument.

Basic troll stuff, now he's whining his way down the drain...buh-by!

 

[KonradZuse]

Ya, my laboratory analysis of MO came back and he's a 99% blowtard who is just in this for the "five dollar" argument.

Basic troll stuff, now he's whining his way down the drain...buh-by!

Lulz... It's like I said sounds like they just want to find something bad.


He told me The "computer analysis always produces false-positives, we need the chemist themselves to test it."

So a few things.

1. What is being false positive? The evil shit inside? So that's a good thing if the bad stuff is "false-positive" right right?

IF the amounts are "false-positive" it doesn't make much sense, unless the "positive" is the low amounts which he's trying to say it should be much more.

Then he says Gray Wolf is "guessing" How is he guessing when the data is right here?

Also how would a computer be wrong which is used to calculate all of this stuff, but a human scientist is going to be produce less error? How will they test it? They will probably be standing in front of that computer lol.....

 

[KonradZuse]

Also, another thing, if it's such a concern to people, they should be buying closed loop systems. If this can all be removed with one any real argument is voided on that side, unless people still want to use open systems.

Also, will there be any tests on the butane cans themselves, to see once and for all wha tthe best choices of cans are?

We cannot get AirGas tanks without a license right? Or is there another way we can go about it?

 

[jump117]

Pharmacy huh? Wouldn't have crossed my mind...

I also focused on flow-through filter.
A few years ago I read in the Spanish forum "cannabiscafe" on how Leocadius fills the upper part of the tube with activated carbon, shielding it from the material using a coffee filter.
Preparation of butane in one capacity with the subsequent transfusion to another is quite feasible, but too bulky.
Furthermore, should ensure that the coal particles do not fall into the extractor, good resin adheres to coal as well as a mysterious crap.
I do not know much about bentonite, activated charcoal is more attractive to me because it is sold in a pharmacy next door.

With regard to the chemical composition of this shit, regardless of composition, it must be removed. Blank test run must be clear.

 

[Intoxicus5]

50 ppm is .005% which would mean that "Near Zero Impurities" butane* is 99.995% pure.(*I'm not counting the iso-butane and propane that is mixed in there, rather the three non-toxic solvents as a mixture.)

150 ppm of impurities is .015% which still leaves with a 99.985% pure mixture.

I think we should consider ourselves lucky that we're getting lighter refill butane that is refined to such a high purity in the first place.

N-butane is also 99.9% purity.

It would interesting to see the different profiles of impurities between high purity lighter refill and n-butane.

 

[Gray Wolf]

Quote:
Mystery Oil shared a link.
September 15
I am having a hard time communicating with GW in his forum--or at least he is not understanding me. So, I will respond here to his points and then he can join the discussion here, if he would like, in a more open manner (criticisms and questions are welcome). Thanks GW and Skunkpharm.

GW: Why can you say what you want about the quality of my work, yet that same privilege is proscribed for me???

MO: I am here for you, questions and criticisms. I love to learn; and the "pressure/challenge" of explaining myself and being questioned creates an environment of growth. Please, critique and question at will.

GW: I would be more accepting of you talking to the lab I use, on the samples that I had run, and making statements about the accuracy, if you actually talked to the person who managed the analysis, who is on vacation and hasn’t been present all week.

MO: I did talk with Marty. He said he would be leaving the project with a colleague (AJ) while he is on vacation. He said my samples would be worked by him as well. AJ has your data and mine. Are you suggesting that AJ is inferior to Marty. It may be so, but they are working as colleagues at the same lab. Marty trusted AJ, so I do, too. Makes sense if you trust Marty.

GW: I also question why it is so important to you that my analysis is wrong, and brought about this confrontation.

MO: I never once stated that your analysis is wrong. I said the tests were automated and that a chemist (Marty or AJ) would have to do a manual review of the contents to check for accuracy. Why would I state that the lab and TIC were wrong and then turn around and order the same tests at $250/piece?

GW: Your focus on the accuracy of something measured in parts per billionth, when the real issue is there anything in there close to permissible exposure limits is the real question.
The answer thus far is no, by several orders of magnitude, so is the debate equivalent to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pen?

MO: I never disagreed that each component within the MO is low with regard to exposure limits. But, I don't agree with downplaying its potential health risks based on a TENTATIVE report. More importantly, for the sake of the patients, erring on the side of caution when stating opinion about the safety of a product is the safest bet. Stating that you "will hence forth vacuum distill all butane, regardless of [its] source, before using it in our extraction process" and then turning around and stating that you "continue to use the oil in [your] stash made before [you] discovered MO", is confusing and irresponsible. You have a TIC report (T is for TENTATIVE) and you collected a little bit of MO (but cannot tell me if you accurately weighed it) and you feel comfortable telling your large and captive audience at Skunkpharm that it is probably safe 'cause of the low rate it will be at in BHO?

GW: Until you attacked the credibility of my work, I was willing to let you say anything you wanted and just let the final results speak for themselves. I would still like to do that, if you will stop second guessing things about my experiments that you aren’t in a position to know, and posting them on line.
Please do run your own experiments, and you are welcome that I turned you onto a lab equipped to do the analysis. I will continue to run mine, and if the end results disagree, that is the time to attack my credibility with facts.

MO: Again, I have not attacked your credibility. I explained my understanding of the TIC report as explained by several chemists and I asked you about your methods of collecting and weighing the Lucienne Mystery Oil. If anything I have tried to add to your "credibility" by sharing your posts on my page. Reminder: I am running my own experiments. Why do you think you started running yours? (;

GW: I didn’t say that you’ve out lived your welcome, because I wouldn’t have ever allowed what you posted to be visible to the readership, if I didn’t think what you had to say was important for them to hear.

MO: No worries. I didn't feel unwelcome.

GW: That doesn’t mean that I endorse everything that you have to say, or that I will stand by and say nothing.

MO: I know you have a brain of your own and that you are not mute.

GW: I salute you for discovering Mystery Oil and your efforts to make the public aware of it, but please also consider that I also have the responsibility to insure that our readership has facts to go with the hearsay and opinions, especially when they may not agree.

MO: I don't need a salute. Is this what this is about for you? This is not my discovery. It has been known about for years; it was just not given any attention until now. Thanks, but, no thanks on the 'salute'. Reserve it for the patients who felt the responsibility to share the MO page with their friends.

GW: You can leave or stay as you like, and since I will be gone a week for vacation, perhaps you will have some test results when I return and we can discuss any disparities.

MO: Discuss? You mean like where you selectively moderate the discussion in your forum? No, thanks. There shouldn't be discrepancies anyway, we are working with the same labs. The only discrepancy so far is in the amount of weight we collected per can (in the end, with BHO tests, that wont matter anyway).

GW: No one disagrees that when you are measuring in Parts Per Billionth, that there is room for error. How large is that error vis a vis anything that makes any difference at anywhere near those levels is perhaps the question you might give further consideration ?

MO: I was not referring to the ppb/ppm. I was referring to the fact that the list does have false-positives on it and those needed to be manually "weeded out".


GW: What I don’t agree with is that my report was simply an automated run without any confirmation.
There are 51 more pages that you haven’t seen, which Marty and I went over trying to guess where they may have come from.

MO: Sounds like the beginning of the manual review I am talking about. All I know is, there is more work to be done, per AJ, in order to narrow the results down.

GW: Pick a constitute and I’ll publish the page for the mass spectrometer peak that showed up on, I just don’t have the time, room, or inclination to publish them all, when there presence is moot at the levels indicated, and they are in a concentrated sample, not the original butane or the end medication.

MO: That is fine. Probably would be a waste of time. Especially on the ones with low 'response time', as these are probably some of the 'false-positives'.

GW: Marty should be back from vacation by my return, and be able to defend the difference between our conversation and the one you had with someone else at the same lab. I suggest that before reporting to the world on open forum, as you have done, that the actual professional who was involved be allowed voice.

MO: If what I stated is wrong then Marty would want to take that up with AJ; the one he entrusted this project to while gone.

GW: I would also like to continue my own experimentation without being forced into taking a position until the facts are in.

MO: I never use force. Please, point to where force has come into play?

GW: I published the list, replete with CAS#’s for anyone to be able to identify any components at levels that exceed current limits. I immediately checked on the obvious, but confess to not having had the time to follow up on each and every one yet. One of the reasons that I published it, was to give anyone the smoking gun, who wants ammunition to shout concern to the roof tops.
So far no one has shouted out, and I would also like to wait and see what happens there. If there are alarms noted, I want to follow up on those as well.

MO: Awesome! Thank-you for all that you have done.

GW: In a nutshell, I saw too many surprises during research before retirement, to take a solid position until the facts are all in. Especially with public announcements that better damn well be supported with more than hearsay if it ends up in a libel suit.

MO: That is cool. You have been directly involved with research that ended in libel suits? Who fucked up? What field of research did you work in?

GW: If we can agree to keep the discovery and brainstorming separate from judiciary evaluation, we can work more closely together, but not if you continue to discredit my findings, without having concurrently providing findings of equal validity and support.

MO: Judicial evaluation? Huh? Again, I HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO DISCREDIT YOUR FINDINGS. I asked questions that related to my findings. Like you stated earlier. When our findings differ, we will get together. That is what we did. I asked you how you collected so little MO from 72 cans of Lucienne when I was collecting much more, and you said you could have made an error based on your processes; and looking at the second pic of the bottom of your collection vessel, it appeared you had collected more than just .158g of MO. And I left it at that. As in, I figured you were in error and the .158g for 72 cans was a bad number.

GW: Till then, hoping you have a productive week and have lots of analytical data to share soon.

MO: A productive week to you as well. Thank-you for the posts on cleaning the N-tane. I know several producers making the change currently; MUCH LOVE FOR THAT!

Yeah, I mentioned that, I just haven't tried to winterize yet.


It's not just the MO thing which is turning into a joke I'VE ALWAYS felt meh about BHO. My coughing definitely has increased and TBH, my tolerance and shit as well.

I enjoy vaping bud much better now.



To everyone else, I will try to do some runs on my own when I am able to, but I want to do them right if I'm going back to BHO.



















Also why is MO starting shit with Gray Wolf on Facebook?


It's like Gray Wolf didn't only get the data to and from them faster, but he has everything he needs. Others tried talking shit on Gray Wolf too. I put them in their place. These mofos WANT TO FIND SOMETHING WRONG.... THAT IS ALL!!!

SO according to MO Gray Wolf just guessed, and all of his data was "False-Positives." so he wants a person to check results, instead of a machine? kk.....

Well now, looks like MO has been having a field day while I've been on vacation. Hardly needs me present to carry on both sides of the conversation.

I just talked to Marty at my lab, who says that they most emphatically do not discuss client projects with others, without specific written permission from the client.

He also says that my project hasn't been discussed with others, so it looks like we have to decide between what MO is telling us and the professional at the lab.

I had already decided on believing the professional at the lab, when I saw what is written above and seemingly on MO's face book page.

Now that I have seen it, it is crystal clear that this is no longer about the not so mysterious oil, and is now about someones ego needs.

Sorry I don't have the time or inclination to ablige, and will be focusing on the project. I don't need MO's approval.

If my GC/MS results are so easily brushed aside, what evidence would be accepted anyway and who said that MO was the person in charge who got to decide in the first place.

What I did discuss with Marty, is a simpler method to measure total PPM of un-mystery oil it each of the different brands, including Airgas and Praxair. That will give us third party confirmation on that point. More on that later

 

[KonradZuse]

I had your back Gray Wolf, no worries, bunch of clown shoes were talking shit too, I put them in their place.

it's like I said to MO, all he's been doing is stirring shit up, and I said you not only got your shit together faster, you got results faster.

I asked him how he could argue it? Bullshit excuses.


They were saying you were making up excuses, I told them they are jokes. There are no excuses, I linked them directly to this thread, they can see the data themselves.

I trust the pros at IC, not the kids on FB.


BTW Gray Wolf did you even have that convo with him, or did he really make the entire dialogue up?

 

[Gray Wolf]

I had your back Gray Wolf, no worries, bunch of clown shoes were talking shit too, I put them in their place.

it's like I said to MO, all he's been doing is stirring shit up, and I said you not only got your shit together faster, you got results faster.

I asked him how he could argue it? Bullshit excuses.


They were saying you were making up excuses, I told them they are jokes. There are no excuses, I linked them directly to this thread, they can see the data themselves.

I trust the pros at IC, not the kids on FB.


BTW Gray Wolf did you even have that convo with him, or did he really make the entire dialogue up?

He took lines from one or more of my posts and added his comments, as if we were having a conversation.

If you look at his posts in the comments section of the Mystery Oil page on our Skunk Pharm Research blog, you will also note that he has a CO2 system on order and guess what process he will be competing with.........................

Clearly the issue is not Mystery Oil, or the focus would be on it as opposed to the media blitz on face book.

I have come to believe that Mystery Oil Jack is a commercial enterprise and this whole blitz was for business purposes.

That said, I think that we still owe him a salute for stirring the pot, even if it was for all the wrong reasons, because he started an action through which we made new discoveries and the state of the art was advanced.

I don't recommend attempting to thank him for that directly, as you can see his response to my salute.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"MO: I don't need a salute. Is this what this is about for you? This is not my discovery. It has been known about for years; it was just not given any attention until now. Thanks, but, no thanks on the 'salute'. Reserve it for the patients who felt the responsibility to share the MO page with their friends."[/FONT]

The key point is that his participation or approval isn't required for us to conduct our own experiments, so I will finish my round of third party experiments on butane, to verify actual PPM levels, and still await viewer input on what has been posted thus far.

 

[Intoxicus5]

He took lines from one or more of my posts and added his comments, as if we were having a conversation.

If you look at his posts in the comments section of the Mystery Oil page on our Skunk Pharm Research blog, you will also note that he has a CO2 system on order and guess what process he will be competing with.........................

Clearly the issue is not Mystery Oil, or the focus would be on it as opposed to the media blitz on face book.

I have come to believe that Mystery Oil Jack is a commercial enterprise and this whole blitz was for business purposes.

That said, I think that we still owe him a salute for stirring the pot, even if it was for all the wrong reasons, because he started an action through which we made new discoveries and the state of the art was advanced.

I don't recommend attempting to thank him for that directly, as you can see his response to my salute.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"MO: I don't need a salute. Is this what this is about for you? This is not my discovery. It has been known about for years; it was just not given any attention until now. Thanks, but, no thanks on the 'salute'. Reserve it for the patients who felt the responsibility to share the MO page with their friends."[/FONT]

The key point is that his participation or approval isn't required for us to conduct our own experiments, so I will finish my round of third party experiments on butane, to verify actual PPM levels, and still await viewer input on what has been posted thus far.

There's so many things about that Oil Jack character and his methodology of approach that had all the fuckery alarm bells ringing in my head from the get go.

I've had a few BHO producers contact me and express their suspicions as well. From him being Matt Rize or an associate to closed manufacturer(s) in conspiracy I've damn near heard it all at this point.

Although these impurities we're calling Mystery Oil should be removed we have to remember that we're lucky enough to get what's *effectively* lab grade(99.9%+ purity) butane in a lighter refill canister.

Despite and inspite of Oil Jack's actions I would like this MO controversy to result in some real industry standards being set. If we don't do it sooner than later someone else will do it for us, and we probably won't like it.

I think we owe much to GRayWolf and Skunk Pharms for being outstandingly rational and scientific about the whole thing.

And also thanks for publishing a vacuum distilling tek so quickly; I know it's really helped myself out.

Peace and Respect

 

[SkyHighLer]

Nice jump117! I had some very old PUR Ultimate kitchen water faucet filters and shot a can of Gasone 'butane fuel' through one into a Mason jar. Smells much better, seems to be less oily residue, but I seem to be pulling something from the filter assembly that adds a yellow tinted residue. I got less yellow stuff the second time with the same filter and another whole can of Gasone. Still too much yellow, I need to pick up some finely powdered activated charcoal/carbon...should I get some bentonite also? GW mentioned it, and I've been waiting to hear more before investing the time and money on bulk purchases. Pharmacy huh? Wouldn't have crossed my mind...

Just ordered a stainless steel turkey bastor and a pound each of powdered activated carbon and bentonite to pack it with.

The tightest paper filters I have are 2.5 micron, do I need to go tighter when filtering butane with the activated carbon and bentonite? I plan to collect the filtered liquid butane in a Mason jar for a quick soak extraction (also using the 2.5 micron filter paper.)

Filtering butane doesn't seem to be absolutely necessary according to the residue analysis results that have come in so far, but I thought I'd check this out if only for the butane odor reduction.

 

[G.O. Joe]

The activated carbon treatment probably works best when performed on both the butane and winterized ethanolic BHO. Wash off dust with the solvent before using.

Ion exchange resins might be helpful with things like the substituted aniline, but I'd assume such methods were used before it got in the can.

 

[jump117]

The activated carbon treatment probably works best when performed on both the butane and winterized ethanolic BHO.

Why use activated carbon to winterized BHO?
It grabs a good resin, there will be losses.

 

[G.O. Joe]

A more concentrated ppm of contaminants should result in more contaminants being removed by the carbon, depending on the carbon. Ethanolic rather than butane solution may also result in better removal. And the GW Pharma patent recommends it, stating that some unknown component that affects the storage stability of THC is removed; they document this fully except they do not say which carbon exactly they used or how much THC was also removed by it.

 

[jump117]

; they document this fully except they do not say which carbon exactly they used or how much THC was also removed by it.

Probably they do not say how much THC was removed because the losses were discouragingly high.

I have observed a loss of 150 mg from 400 mg of AA in 50 ml of ethanol after 15 minutes of stirring with 2.5 g of activated charcoal (click) at room temperature.