Joe and I have both spoken out against sub standard and unsafe extraction devices, but how about those suppliers whose marketing plaudits, include poisoning the well for their competition with exaggerations and untruths?
Suppliers with such a low opinion of their own product, that they don’t feel up to competing based on their own products attributes, so they make a concerted effort to shoot down the competitors product using a tapestry woven of truths, half truths, and untruths.
Joining MO in that regard, we now have Connoisseur Concentrates with Mr Extractor, whom paint their competitors as intentionally poisoning the public.
They present their machine as the safer alternative, yet publish a video demonstrating extracting indoors, with out a properly ventilated extraction enclosure, a never, under any circumstances NO NO.
If they are the safer alternative, what does that make the rest of us?
Compounding the egregious blunder, they also didn’t first vacuum the oxygen from the extractor before injecting the butane. They instead floated the oxygen laden atmosphere out and burped it out into the room.
Please ask your local fire marshal’s views on how safe he thinks that is.
In point of fact their “safer” machine didn’t even have a vacuum connection for a pump, as do both the Tamisium and Lil Terp they present as inferior.
We touched swords on IC MAG forum, (https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=298826)but Drew left the field to avoid answering the questions listed below.
I see them germane to the question of whether Mr Extractor is indeed safer and ahead of the industry, or whether they are just a rip off of the Tamisium and Lil Terp, adding a glass sight glass unlikely to meet ANSI/ASME in this application.
Certainly the jackets are handier than buckets, but are they safer and what in Earth justifies the $6000 markup over the cost to assemble a Lil Terp? Is it the attached jackets to avoid using buckets.
What justifies the added cost over the Tamisium TE-175 at about $1800?
The questions begging an answer, and being avoided, are as follows:
(1) A yes or no question. Do you have a ME PE stamped document certifying Mr Extractor to meet ANSI and ASME?
(1.1) May we see a copy?
(2) Now may we talk about finishing. Would you share with us how you recommend finishing the material from your recovery pot to meet current residual solvent standards?
(3) Do you have any reputable third party lab analysis of product demonstrating the common deposits of metal and PTFE piston ring material in extractions and if so, would you please share?
(4) I am most curious about your use of 9mm borosilicate tube for the extraction tube, which we too looked at because it is so obvious, but decided to not pursue it after considering the effect of shock sensitivity during sharp temperature gradients.
We even looked at having the glass coated inside and out with clear PTFE for the added safety, but decided it wasn’t a good idea to have a pressurized glass vessel with flammable gas inside.
Sort of along the same lines of why the gas station won’t fill your glass jug for you.
(4.1) That leads me to the subject of liability insurance. May we see a copy of your product liability policy and contact information to your carrier?
Drew also claims superior performance, but has failed to address the following observations:
1.0 The pumped system is considerably faster.
2.0 The pumped system evacuates the oxygen before injecting butane, so that there is never an explosive mixture.
2.1 Since Mr Extractor uses no vacuum, the passive system mixes the butane with atmosphere as it is injected and floats the explosive mixture out. It is vulnerable to ignition and explosion during that process.
3.0 The system is recovered to -22″ in a pumped system, so only 25% of its volume in vapor is lost.
3.1 100% of its volume in vapor is lost when opening a passive system.
4.0 An active system recovers most of the butane soaked into the material in the columns, by vacuuming to -22″Hg. The pumps are unable to achieve that level until most of the butane is gone.
The last 25% between -22″ Hg and -29″ Hg, is subsequently pumped off using a vacuum pump, so when the columns are opened, there is not an explosive mixture.
4.1 The passive system not only doesn’t recover the butane soaked into the material to the same levels as the active systems, but when opened the columns are definitely within explosive limits.
Because it leaves the butane in the material, losses are greater.
5.0 A pumped system can pass more fresh clean butane through the material faster, and in both directions, so ergo it extracts faster and more completely.
6.0 You can recover a pumped system recovery pot at 31.9F, so as to preserve more carboxylic acids and aromatics.
6.1 Even using dry ice, you are still using a hot water bath with the meds in it, utilizing passive techniques.
7.0 An active system easily pre-distills butane at 85F, to remove residuals including Pentane, which boils around 100F.
7.1 Recovery at 85F using a passive system takes much longer.
8.0 An active system offers more latitude for propane mixes.