Why do trichomes sink?

Nutes and Nugs

Well-Known Member
When done right, ISO comes out very flavorful and with wonderful colors. Check out some of the pics we have out there and you'd be surprised at the quality it produces :) But I understand your want for an easier way. It all depends what your going for. Dry sift, bubble, bho, qwiso. Many have pro's and con's to each style, and many times the pro's and con's differ from each person. I personaly kinda bounce around with them all. I have done more qwISO then BHO runs but I like them both, I've done bubble once with the bags and it was good. Dry sifting for me has always been the one I wanted to get better at.
There are so many threads about extracts and I read so many to the point of confusion and nothing gets done.
 

SnapsProvolone

Well-Known Member
the 220 is fine but you want to clean out the stuff that is smaller than the heads because they will saturate quickly and ruin it. Stuff that small will cling to the bags, other trichomes, and whatever else because they are so light. A screen with holes smaller than most of the heads (<80u) can help pass the smaller contaminant through while holding onto the larger heads. You can use a light suction or vibration to help it pass through.
Yep I was just thinking about it yesterday. I've never tried the cleaners but they are pretty cheap so I might have to try it. I did the math and came up with roughly 1.7 MHz for soundwaves. At that frequency the wavelength is roughly twice the diameter of the trichome head. Who know what will actually work most effectively though.
Let us know how this works

http://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/22mm-1-7MHZ-piezo-transducer-Ultrasonic-Atomizers/106224_585576605.html
 

Daub Marley

Active Member
I believe I have a screen that is similar to that size. Do you sift with your hand usually or the card method? I like the idea of a vacuum, I was actually thinking of that a few days ago lol. Have you tried this yourself? I was also thinking of maybe putting a 45 micron screen on the actual vacuum itself so I can inspect what it caught.
Usually by hand, but that's not going to work for larger amounts so I'm trying to find the most efficient and effective way to do it. I have used the vacuum before and it worked quite well. It removed all the contaminants that were smaller than the screen holes, but I didn't care about saving the smaller heads that went with it. That's a good idea to try and save them with an even smaller screen.
Gentleness is mandatory to quality when sieving. Dry ice processing as shown by N&N is the butchery of an art form.
Yeah its a trade off between quality and quantity. That's the reason why most people are going straight to BHO and missing the good dry sift and water hash. With solvent extractions its easy and you can get a great yield with almost no change in quality. The way I see it, in order for other extraction methods to be competitive they must also offer the same.
It all depends what your going for. Dry sift, bubble, bho, qwiso. Many have pro's and con's to each style, and many times the pro's and con's differ from each person. I personaly kinda bounce around with them all.
That's a good pint. I bounce between them all too because they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, and the big disadvantage with solvent extractions is that you lose most of your terpenes.
 

WarMachine

Well-Known Member
Decided to bring this thread back up, do you think the cold water would work on this stuff? It doens't bubble or melt (burns, tastes really good though). If I put some in a cold glass of water, think I can filter it enough? It feels very soft and squishy. Not sure if it is made with water or dry sifting.

 

Daub Marley

Active Member
Decided to bring this thread back up, do you think the cold water would work on this stuff? It doens't bubble or melt (burns, tastes really good though). If I put some in a cold glass of water, think I can filter it enough? It feels very soft and squishy. Not sure if it is made with water or dry sifting.

Well I've never tried it yet, so you're going to have to try it out with a small amount to find out if it really works. If you spread it on the water very thinly and without clumps at all, then there should be a hydrophobic difference between the plant material containment and the heads. This is assuming you've already used other techniques to get your material to the point where all the particle (contaminants and heads) are roughly the same size. So as long as you can get it without clumps, and the particles are all roughly uniform in size then it should work.
 
Top