Hash oil is dissolved in ethanol and then chilled to -10c.
After 24-48 hours the waxes and fats precipitate out and you just filter them out of the solution.
Also i don't think they hand water the flowering crop just clones.
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
How the Big Boys Roll
- Thread starter mofeta
- Start date
Hash oil is dissolved in ethanol and then chilled to -10c.
After 24-48 hours the waxes and fats precipitate out and you just filter them out of the solution.
Also i don't think they hand water the flowering crop just clones.
N
Nondual
Maybe one of the things they do is select the best performing plants from veg and toss a bunch. A friend would take 4 times as many clones as he would flower and go through 2 selections during veg and only put the best into flower and very uniform at that point.
I tried an isomerization on an ounce of hash oil once, and I failed. This sounds like it would be pretty easy. Do you have any links? I'd assume that this would get rid of a lot of the skunk taste of baking with ganja. At the very least, wouldn't this [obviously] increase potency? Remove non-psychoactive materials, leave behind good stuff, and wha-bam, more potent! Right?
As soon as I saw the first picture I knew somebody was going to chime in about it.
Isomerization is a chemical process where you make thc-acetate. Which is a heavier and more potent substance. I don't know much about thc-acetate but assume it is less stable or not worth the trouble of making if its not used in the pharmaceutical preparation.
I assume you mean decarboxilating with heat. This makes it orally active. The process also converts or destroys other terpenes but leaves behind i think B-Caryophyllene which is what is in pepper.
There are ways to make a pretty neutral extract with just really cannabinoids and none of the flavors.
total controll,to fuck up!!! hand watering???? really??/ buy a fuckin clue
No, I tried an isomerization. If I remember correctly, it involved some H2SO4 and a reflux distillation. When I evaporated what was left, there was nothing there. I was confused, and I think I was in a little over my head. I did have fun using my chemistry setup though.
Could you point me towards some reading? I've been trying to get a neutral tasting extract for years, but I've never found a method that works.
No, I tried an isomerization. If I remember correctly, it involved some H2SO4 and a reflux distillation. When I evaporated what was left, there was nothing there. I was confused, and I think I was in a little over my head. I did have fun using my chemistry setup though.
Could you point me towards some reading? I've been trying to get a neutral tasting extract for years, but I've never found a method that works.
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=168388
jump will teach you everything you need to know. enjoi
The only way those are hand watered is if Mr Stetcho Armstrong works there. Those are flood tables you can see the fitting in the lower left of the second or third picture. The middle tubs are as perfect as the rest and those tables looked stationary so they cannot be moved so if they are hand watered HOW they would have to have a harness connected to the ceiling?
I say Ebb and Flow baby that is why they are all so perfect nice show but by hand I cannot see it sorry.
My Penny'
Mr.Wags
Mia
Active member
Seems like a silly thing to lie about.
I do agree and I hope you don't think that is what I'm implying. All I'm saying is those table's don't move and on the lower left of the first picture you will see water fitting so that the tables can be flooded.
Hell man it does not matter it is what many will never achieve and for that I commend them no matter how the girls get fed.
Have A Great Day
Mr.Wags
I totally believe this 'Mia' account could be a woman. A 'lie,' really? lol. As if gw pharma was an ex-boyfriend.
you two need to smoke the weed that calms you down and helps you not to be a prick. FROM THE ARTICLE PDF, PAGE 33:
"Minimal hand watering for 3 weeks, until roots established"
"Automated systems apply water through to harvest"
Calm the f down and stop being internet assholes. This is what you come off as, speaking as an internet expert. You come off as being retarded.
Yeap.. My bad.. mia culpa ...drunk actually...I had been havin a hand watering discussion in the REAL..fool killed off my gurls "hand waterin for total control" in a hydro system..again my bad
They have lights up so they must use them at some point. If they are going to use them they might as well use them the right way. They are wasted there.
Supplemental light? You mean to keep them from flowering when the sun goes down in the winter? Then use a cheap cfl light to prevent that or lower the HPS so they actually work.
Supplemental light? You mean like on winter days when the solar angles have become narrow and you don't have the type of sun that will produce dense buds? Well those lights at that height are not doing the best job.
Why do people start fawning all over people that have grows just because they are really big? They seem to overlook the really foolish and wasteful things some of these growers do. Like wasting electricity and equipment.
Sorry but it takes way more than big to impress me. It takes efficiency, ingenuity and results.
Everyday those lights remain there is their "trophy of stupidity and wastefulness". Really how good can they be? If you are going to turn on a light it might as well be at the proper distance and be able to do what it was intended for.
If you knew somebody was going to mention the height of those lights than you must have known they were wrong.
In England you need supplemental lighting in the winter. Its only like 54degrees north.
They have also done studies on light intensity and yield. Imagine that with equations and everything. And I think they have proven that 75w per sq meter gives the best results.
and not to be rude, but cfls? In a greenhouse?
They have also done studies on light intensity and yield. Imagine that with equations and everything. And I think they have proven that 75w per sq meter gives the best results.
and not to be rude, but cfls? In a greenhouse?
Yes or regular incandescent lights.
See kief I was just making a couple legit comments. Then dizzle and you both made comments that were flavored with incredulousness. Basically you were saying in cyber tone "You have no idea what you are talking about". You feel me?
In the spring or winter in a greenhouse when you have the plants vegging you only need enough light to not let them detect the dark period. Most people wouldn't waste HPS electricity to accomplish this. Most people just hang some regular type bulbs. So yes cfls in a greenhouse. And they could be mounted as high as those lights.
Now that we have established that let me comment further on the height. If you are using the supplemental lighting to flower. Either for added light or all the light on cloudy days then those lights should be mounted at a height that maximizes their penetration. Otherwise IMHO you are wasting them and the electricity they use.
It would be tricky mounting them so they don't block sunlight. They should go vert or have the lights on slender poles that can be lowered under the canopy when not needed so they don't block any light.
As nice as the operation looks the light height is not dialed in and they could have a better set-up. The lights are wasted where they are at.
IMHO if I had an indoor room the same size as their greenhouse with their same lights mounted at the proper height I would out yield their greenhouse.
Just sayin'!
See kief I was just making a couple legit comments. Then dizzle and you both made comments that were flavored with incredulousness. Basically you were saying in cyber tone "You have no idea what you are talking about". You feel me?
In the spring or winter in a greenhouse when you have the plants vegging you only need enough light to not let them detect the dark period. Most people wouldn't waste HPS electricity to accomplish this. Most people just hang some regular type bulbs. So yes cfls in a greenhouse. And they could be mounted as high as those lights.
Now that we have established that let me comment further on the height. If you are using the supplemental lighting to flower. Either for added light or all the light on cloudy days then those lights should be mounted at a height that maximizes their penetration. Otherwise IMHO you are wasting them and the electricity they use.
It would be tricky mounting them so they don't block sunlight. They should go vert or have the lights on slender poles that can be lowered under the canopy when not needed so they don't block any light.
As nice as the operation looks the light height is not dialed in and they could have a better set-up. The lights are wasted where they are at.
IMHO if I had an indoor room the same size as their greenhouse with their same lights mounted at the proper height I would out yield their greenhouse.
Just sayin'!
