Th Entity wrote:Quote:I keep the entire process at 60C
Thats cool but i bet you pull more oils/fats and unwanted material, and in some stages of the process i think thats unecessary. But whatever works for you. CTM suggest if using heat to break down plant proteins for more ionic strenght you should use 70C for hours.
I do pull more oils and fats, which to me is wanted material. I like more spirit in my spice. The fats and oils from the plant give the experience a living plant energy. Pure white xtals are very mechanical and alien. Still very cool and interesting, though. I guess it's just an acquired taste over the years.
And even if i wanted clean white xtals, i could always do a mini AB.
Th Entity wrote:Quote:More heat means more Brownian motion, which means more molecular collision. Reaction rate is hastened by heat.
That is true but you can use more water to compensate for the heat, and i dont think heating both the naptha and aq solution while pulling will give the most saturated pulls because the dmt would become more soluble in both liquids (even if freebase, thats what i read)
"solutes are more soluble in heated solvents (water/non polar)" The only reason why one would use heat after basification and during pulling is to achive faster separation of the layers and pull more stuff (fats,oils) This is the only reason that comes to mind. But the difference in the amount of DMT pulled with heat on both layers vs only heated nonpolar wont be dramatic if there is any at all, the only increase in yield from heating bothlayers would be from unwanted things like fats/oils.. i think, which would complicate things because you would have to do more cleaning later.
As i understand it (which could be wrong), the freebase DMT is not dissolved in the base solution. It's merely
suspended in solution, floating free, hence the term. The moment it makes contact with the NPS, it jumps ship,
dissolving into the more preferable solvent. So, in this case, the freebase DMT in the solvent is acting as a solute, creating a solution. Having more heat means that there are more chances for the DMT to jump ship into the solvent. This, plus the faster separation, is why i maintain the entire process at 60c.
I refrain from adding more water to the extraction, since it increases the working volume.
I've done both warm pulls and cold pulls. Warm pulls have always yielded more, regardless of how much i was mixing the cold one. I was even putting more effort into the cold pull, but it still yielded much less. However, the extra yield in the warm pulls could very well be just the oils/fats.
Th Entity wrote:Quote:i don't leave anything to chance. Overkill is better than no kill. There is no guarantee that every cell will be lysed from the freeze/thaw. Even the acid cook might not fully lyse the cells, depending on the texture of the starting material. The basification will reduce even semi-solid strips of bark into a sludgy mess, allowing better access to the juicy innards.
I think thats overkill heres why: First the bark is sliced to powder in high speed, beated to dust, then its heated in waterbath (max ion) then freeze/thawed 3x and then its boiled in acid and then
(if not filtered) its in high pH enviroment, and most of these are done over hours and hours.
Makes no sense to me to potentially contaminate final product with fats/oils and wasting time for
multiple cleaning steps (to remove those oils) later. And in the end it probabbly wont even increase the overall DMT pulled.
I don't always use powdered bark. I have a lot of bark that are chunks of solid strips, and quite difficult/annoying to powderise. I have to shred this plant material as finely as i can, which is nowhere near as fine as powdered. This affects yield dramatically, if using poor technique. With having plant material that is shredded and not powdered, a lot of the solvent and DMT can be trapped between the physical fragments of bark.
The goal is to maximise yield and efficiency. Sometimes, that means putting in more work. Those potential contaminations can be easily removed, which is an easy price to pay for a greater chance of more yield. The proper scientific method involves taking every variable into account, and minimising (or maximising) it's impact.
"And in the end it probabbly wont even increase the overall DMT pulled."
There is a massive difference in yield between shoddy technique and proper methodology. I've done both many times, shoddy is always shoddy. Shoddy, in this case, means either skipping "optional" steps, or doing the steps half-arsed.
Th Entity wrote:You said it: More heat means more Brownian motion, which means more molecular collision.
Which one would guess means more dmt (overall or per pull) but is that the case?
Most solutes are more soluble in heated solvent (water/nonpolar) + heat more motion = more molecular collision (keep in mind that dmt present in bark is limited to 2-3% according to the information present)
So what does that mean: It means that not only heating both layers wont be beneficial but it can even reduce DMT amount in solvent PER PULL (because you are pulling more of unwanted things along the dmt)
I'm not sure this final part is correct. Since the solvent can be used ad infinitum, the amount of plant oils and fats being dissolved in the solvent is minuscule compared to it's holding capacity. Even the most yellow fat laden solvent can be used to pull DMT, with no noticeable effect on yield.
Th Entity wrote:Like i said (i think): The only difference in yield would be from fats/oils present in the final product (if pulled with applied heat on both layers) which would give one the idea that he pulled more dmt, but it could actually be "dirtier" Dmt which would need further purification, while if we only heated the non polar (without the AQ layer(room temp)) we would not only get purer final product but there would be probabbly no need to further purify and you didnt have to waste time and energy to put up a water heatbath.
Believe me, i've had A LOT of failed extractions before i perfected my technique. When i deliberately experimented with bad technique (but still the correct method), i was getting less yields. I'm a firm believer in getting what you put out. Now, this is the point where this stops being scientific, but when i rushed the extraction or was using bad technique (or both), the trips i got from that yield were incredibly nonsensical at best, and really patronising at worst. Where DMT is like an ever disappointed parent in a child with extreme potential. "Both you and i could do so much more than this", along with such a pathetic lightshow, that it was painfully obvious.
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."