Im also beginning to think your hands on experience is little to none. If i have material thats more the 30% activated thc (30% decarboxlylated) THERE IS NO WAY its gonna come out a shatter at room temp(75F). I run my extraction process at -40F and purge in a dust form at 60F to 70F for 48 hours then heat at 120F to melt into a slab for the last 12 hours. 0ppms every time through analytical 360.
THCa Pseudopolymorphism
- Thread starter Intoxicus5
- Start date
Im also beginning to think your hands on experience is little to none. If i have material thats more the 30% activated thc (30% decarboxlylated) THERE IS NO WAY its gonna come out a shatter at room temp(75F). I run my extraction process at -40F and purge in a dust form at 60F to 70F for 48 hours then heat at 120F to melt into a slab for the last 12 hours. 0ppms every time through analytical 360.
Any time your see 99% THCa its an acid base extraction. pretty simple process using column chromatography.
Intoxicus5
Member
Forgot to add the image in the OP
Read my all of my posts...
Intoxicus5
Member
Or buy a copy of Ed Rosenthal's Beyond Buds as that appears to be your only source of information.
yes i did. nothing you've posted suggests you've actually made any oil at all. you grow, that's cool, i'm sure your great at it but a lot of what you've said in this thread has been wrong. all you've done is argue. nothing beneficial has come from you.
Your talking top people who have been making concentrates and researching techniques for years. its easy is spot people who are just regurgitating info they read somewhere else and misunderstood. or dont know that the extraction we do is a little differnt and behaves a little differnt from most other essential oil extracts
Last edited:
Intoxicus5
Member
Intoxicus5
Member
Can't remember off hand.
I said read all of my most because that is all I posted was eds method to making shatter and then simplify it for a6 and I get this.m also beginning to think your hands on experience is little to none. If i have material thats more the 30% activated thc (30% decarboxlylated) THERE IS NO WAY its gonna come out a shatter at room temp(75F). I run my extraction process at -40F and purge in a dust form at 60F to 70F for 48 hours then heat at 120F to melt into a slab for the last 12 hours. 0ppms every time through analytical 360.
Dude I could post my plug and play methods of purging all day but I would rather post others work that have pioneered it. To say that I have little hands on experience shows your ignorance. I don't need a big rep on ic or need to act like I blazed the trail for something I read off skunkpharm. I'm done with this thread because I'm not going to just argue with a different dude every time I get on here when I just wanted to clarify certain things in the original post.
Sorry but your advice ofDoes absolutely nothing if you have highly activated/decarboxylated oil. All i was trying to say was you were wrong saying you can get shatter from decarboxylated material. By saying decarboxylated material i assumed you meant 100% decarbed, not 5% or 10%, that's not decarbed material, that's just normal material. If you were to talk to anyone with experience and tell them that decarboxylated material will make shatter they are going to be VERY confused, its just not possible. BUT if your referring to a 30% or less decarbed material then yes thats very possible. Its like your trying to cause shit by being vague on your terms.
I've NEVER met a single farmer who refers to his slow cured bud as decarboxylated. Most farmers dont even know what that means lol
Ed isnt someone id take extraction advice from.
All you've done is argue and it hasn't been beneficial to this thread at all. Pangea actually came in and added info to the discussion, not just came in and said your all wrong, this is what "ed" says lol... You also thought a rotovap is used for distillates, which it can, but that's probably the worth piece of equipment for the job. 2 flasks, one hot and one cold would be better then that, which makes me believe you have little to no organic chem experience.
Your posting info from sources that have been discussed years ago, its not helpful, we're past the pioneer days. You wouldn't be arguing with multiple people if you weren't spreading false info. Your posts haven't clarified anything in the original post.
Getting mad at me because you misspoke and meant something else is hilarious
Have fun man, dont get so butt hurt over shit said on the internet. You should watch last weeks episode of south park, I can see you need a safe place.. This comment was almost helpful but really just showed your ignorance.
I will pay you to show me results of stable shatter at room temp that has a 70%+ activated ratio. "decarboxylatied material" means its MOSTLY decarbed. Properly Slow cured material isnt decarbed more then 12%, You make no sense lol. With what your saying i should be able to have a "shatter" 95%+ THC distillate, i would LOVE that, but thats not possible.
Last edited:
Intoxicus5
Member
The shatter and budder phenomena still occurs in secondary solvent dewaxed material. It is not exclusive to the oleoresin.
I'm not sure if shatter actually exhibits a "glass transition."
My research indicates that shatter is an amorphous monocrystal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_transition
There are admittedly some evidentiary gaps that need to be crossed still and indeed the opinion of a crystallographer would be significant.
Part of the purpose of posting this is to encourage those with the means to fill in those evidentiary gaps.
Those two terms are mutually exclusive. Saying "amorphous monocrystal" is like saying "solid gas" or "alkaline acid".
Shatter is not crystalline, it is amorphous. It can contain small crystal inclusions, as I mentioned before, but is for the most part amorphous (non-crystalline).
Polymorphism and psuedopolymorphism and solvatomorphism are properties of crystalline materials by definition, amorphous substances, by definition, do not exhibit these properties.
Pangea was steering you straight about a number of things, you should listen to him. He was right that you need to study the precise meaning of some of the terms you are using.
Intoxicus5
Member
That's what I thought also.
The Master's Chemist Jim Freier is well known for calling shatter "Cannabis Plastic."
He's technically correct.
"Crystalline vs amorphous
Some plastics are partially crystalline and partially amorphous in molecular structure, giving them both a melting point (the temperature at which the attractive intermolecular forces are overcome) and one or more glass transitions (temperatures above which the extent of localized molecular flexibility is substantially increased). The so-called semi-crystalline plastics include polyethylene, polypropylene, poly (vinyl chloride), polyamides (nylons), polyesters and some polyurethanes. Many plastics are completely amorphous, such as polystyrene and its copolymers, poly (methyl methacrylate), and all thermosets."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic#Crystalline_vs_amorphous
I could be wrong and it's just an amorphous solid. So far I am unable to access a crystallographer to get any for sure answers.
The Master's Chemist Jim Freier is well known for calling shatter "Cannabis Plastic."
He's technically correct.
"Crystalline vs amorphous
Some plastics are partially crystalline and partially amorphous in molecular structure, giving them both a melting point (the temperature at which the attractive intermolecular forces are overcome) and one or more glass transitions (temperatures above which the extent of localized molecular flexibility is substantially increased). The so-called semi-crystalline plastics include polyethylene, polypropylene, poly (vinyl chloride), polyamides (nylons), polyesters and some polyurethanes. Many plastics are completely amorphous, such as polystyrene and its copolymers, poly (methyl methacrylate), and all thermosets."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic#Crystalline_vs_amorphous
I could be wrong and it's just an amorphous solid. So far I am unable to access a crystallographer to get any for sure answers.
Last edited:
Intoxicus5
Member
Hey, good, I think you are going in the right direction. This is fun to think about stuff.
The problem with the stuff in your post I quote above is the result of what I consider to be really poor, misleading terminology. I have always thought that the term "semi-crystalline" was just terrible. It really misleads people. I would prefer using something like "aligned" when talking about these materials, as the differences between them and truly crystalline materials are greater than the similarities.
Sure they are both regularly ordered solids, but the degree of regularity in a crystal (absolute regularity/repetition) is of a whole different level than the lining up of strands in these plastics.
When you think of the bonding forces involved the difference is huge also. The covalent bonds of the crystal lattice are what, an order of magnitude stronger than the vdW in a plastic.
Now even if we put aside knowing that "semi-crystalline" is not really a form of crystallinity, we can still ask "Is shatter an aligned polymer?" I don't think it is. One reason is that it is transparent, "semi-crystalline" materials are generally opaque.
I do like thinking about polymers when thinking about the budders and more waxy forms of resin though.
My vote is still for shatter being glassy/amorphous, with some small embedded crystals, but with a degree of crystallinity so low as to preclude calling it polycrystalline, although some of those FatherEarth photos are close maybe.
Intoxicus5
Member
I waffled for a long time before deciding to stick with "amorphous monocrystal." The term does imply the long range order(perfectly repeating pattern of molecules) that is the definition of a crystal.
I wouldn't be surprised if "Cannabis Glass" is a more accurate term than "Cannabis Plastic."
Still not sure if shatter actually exhibits a proper glass transition although it does appear to.
I wouldn't be surprised if "Cannabis Glass" is a more accurate term than "Cannabis Plastic."
Still not sure if shatter actually exhibits a proper glass transition although it does appear to.
Does absolutely nothing if you have highly activated/decarboxylated oil. All i was trying to say was you were wrong saying you can get shatter from decarboxylated material. By saying decarboxylated material i assumed you meant 100% decarbed, not 5% or 10%, that's not decarbed material, that's just normal material. If you were to talk to anyone with experience and tell them that decarboxylated material will make shatter they are going to be VERY confused, its just not possible. BUT if your referring to a 30% or less decarbed material then yes thats very possible. Its like your trying to cause shit by being vague on your terms.
I've NEVER met a single farmer who refers to his slow cured bud as decarboxylated. Most farmers dont even know what that means lol
Ed isnt someone id take extraction advice from.
All you've done is argue and it hasn't been beneficial to this thread at all. Pangea actually came in and added info to the discussion, not just came in and said your all wrong, this is what "ed" says lol... You also thought a rotovap is used for distillates, which it can, but that's probably the worth piece of equipment for the job. 2 flasks, one hot and one cold would be better then that, which makes me believe you have little to no organic chem experience.
Your posting info from sources that have been discussed years ago, its not helpful, we're past the pioneer days. You wouldn't be arguing with multiple people if you weren't spreading false info. Your posts haven't clarified anything in the original post.
Getting mad at me because you misspoke and meant something else is hilarious
This comment was almost helpful but really just showed your ignorance.
I will pay you to show me results of stable shatter at room temp that has a 70%+ activated ratio. "decarboxylatied material" means its MOSTLY decarbed. Properly Slow cured material isnt decarbed more then 12%, You make no sense lol. With what your saying i should be able to have a "shatter" 95%+ THC distillate, i would LOVE that, but thats not possible.
Clearly this post got started for arguments. Not really for a debate. The original post states many things that could be misinterpreted. I was trying to clear up a few things that seemed contradictory that didnt involve the main subject. My original post was questioning what exactly he considers decarboxylated material because he didnt have time to add spicifics to composing the original post. I should have copy and pasted some grey wolf because i knew a bunch of hatchet men would love to jump on eds methods even though they have worked for me in the past. The best part is when intoxis5 wants to post pics of budder... Really dude? Lol you must have missed my point
jazz messenger
Member
This is reasonable evidence for multiple crystalline forms. I always assumed shatter/budder difference was caused by increasing amounts of degradation products from exposure to light heat and oxygen resulting in emergent properties of the colligative variety.
in my experience the blondest crumbliest stuff was back in my wee years when we would open blast undistilled tane in fresh material with a pitfull vaccum purge but still enough to dry it out. i figured because it was fresh and wasnt heat treated it was still mostly in acid form explaining to myself the nice deemster-esque look of the thc crystals. from the lack of data its hard to say whether its a change in the crystal matrix, like the difference between graphite and diamond, or freezing-point depression from impurities.
I think we can all at least agree here that name calling is not heady, check out this triangle
Attachments
