I came up with the term, Dry-Technique (or Drytek), to describe the new extraction techniques born out of the development of the FASA method. Though this is technically STB, as the product is being extracted straight from the plant as freebase after basify the material, the techniques are distinct from traditional STB methods, such as Noman's, in that they incorporate no separatory techniques and are not extracted out of an aqueous solution. The reason for the particular name is that dryness is a key factor in these techniques. This is also relevant in consideration of the methods of converting DMT-fumarate into freebase.

When I began writing the wiki handbook, I felt compelled to distinguish them from one another. The decision was fairly hasty for the sake of expediency, but it remained as functionally adequate term. I mentioned it on a previous thread but didn't receive any feedback. I've noticed that a tendency to refer to the newer related techniques as STB has developed, so I've decided to call this into question.

Is 'STB' an adequate description of these techniques? Are the new techniques to be considered as an evolution of and replacement for traditional STB, or is traditional STB to remain as a viable technique? Is 'Drytek' a more adequate description of these techniques than 'STB'? Do we need to come up with another name?

I have to say that though I opt for 'Drytek' in order to avoid confusion, I am open to suggestions, as the wiki must reflect a common sentiment and use common terminology.

Thoughts?

drytek seems reasonable..the d-limonene bufotenine tek is a drytek in SWIMs eyes..

SWIM's mescaline extraction tech is initially a dry tech STB. He adds calcium hydroxide to the dry cactus powder and adds just enough water to activate the calcium hydroxide and freebase the mescaline, then pulls with d-limonene. There is no water layer because it's all bound to the calcium hydroxide and cactus. It works better than any other water based tech, because there's not enough water for the mescaline to be dissolved in, so the mescaline has no where to go except into the non-polar solvent (d-limonene). It would work even better if the cactus powder and calcium hydroxide were dried completely before pulling with the d-limonene.

Freebase mescaline is quite water soluble and so in order to pull it with a non-polar solvent, its much better if there’s no water available.

The same is true for other alkaloids that are somewhat soluble in water. This is even true for DMT. Freebase DMT is somewhat soluble in water. In a dry tech, more freebase DMT is pulled in the first non-polar pull as apposed to a wet A/B. It’s pure physics. There’s nothing magical about it.

Imagine if you had an alkaloid, we’ll call alkaloid X. X is freebased but very slightly soluble in water. If you mixed it into an equal portion of water and naphtha, because it’s slightly soluble in water, some will dissolve into the water. But if you mixed it in just naphtha, it would all dissolve in the naphtha.

With a dry tech, there’s no place for freebased X to stay dissolved other than the non-polar solvent. So each non-polar pull will pull all of X that it can. But if water was added, then a certain percent of each pull with always stay in the water, so the non-polar solvent cannot get all the X it could normally get.

Dry techs nearly always out perform wet ones. This is especially so for things like mescaline, bufotenine and LSA which are quite water soluble, so that the presence of water just acts like a magnet for the alkaloids, making it tougher to pull them with a non-polar solvent.

Good to hear it from two of the pioneers of these methods! Thanks for the feedback.

When it is said that the drytek our performs wet extractions, is this in terms of comparative yield?