Register

If you already have an account with us, please use the login panel below to access your account.

Page 67 of 121 FirstFirst ... 1757596061626364656667686970717273747577117 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 670 of 1204
  1. #661
    Grow More Plants
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    588

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysteryOil View Post
    With regard to legally challenging the lighter refill companies, I don't think they care or need to. It states clearly on all cans that they are for the sole purpose of filling lighters.
    I'm fairly certain it's illegal to advertise a product as something it isn't. Didn't Taco Bell get sued for calling what they put in their tacos '100% beef'?

  2. #662

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Graywolf View Post
    What size cans were each of them?
    300ml

    Never knew they had 106ml cans. Cute.
    Last edited by jackgastche; 11-09-2013 at 11:00 AM.

  3. #663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Graywolf View Post
    We haven't been in collision on the empirical results from the lab, but on the way you present things. For instance facebook posting appears to fly in the face of your above post, as per Marty, Specialty Analytical has used identically the same procedure on both of our samples:

    "Lab Update: Specialty Analytical has completed the "open blast" method of MO collection from Vector and Newport. They ran 12 cans of each brand and the results in mg/can are posted below. The reason for this test is the discrepancy between our findings (high ppm/can) and Skunkpharm's findings (low ppm/can). The lab's results with the "open blast" method of collection is much closer to our own findings; however, the scary thing is that they collected more MO than us. And what is even more disconcerting is the range in residual contaminants from can to can. As high as 446mg and as low as 16.8mg in a can of Vector; and as high as 510mg and as low as 38.4mg for Newport. This means that small run BHO "blasters" are potentially getting loaded with MO. Imagine a single can blast with 6grams of BHO and .510grams of MO in it."

    I've also taken exception to your quoting Marty when he was away on vacation at the time, as I consider that unethical, especially after he denies the conversation.

    If we can focus on the specific issue of resolving the levels of contamination in butane, rather than arguing semantics like what constitutes a cold trap, and introducing hearsay evidence, it will feel more to me like we are sharing a scientific experiment.

    If you knew how many dog and pony shows I have attended in my professional lifetime, you might better understand why I insist on progressing in an orderly manner and not running through the streets with the ostensible results, until the fat lady sings.
    I explained the confusion in regard to the methods of testing. I understand now, that your testing and mine were identical. You were using the wrong terminology ("cold trap") and so I was confused as to the test methods. Marty stated to me that the test he did for you was designed by you. Which led me to believe mine was open and yours was closed. I am not arguing semantics with your misuse of terminology (cold trap), I am trying to clear the confusion it has caused. Now we know, the lab ran both tests the same, and we move on...

    I quoted one of Marty's colleagues while he was on vacation. It says that in the post you are referring to. Please, be specific about what the EXACT lie was. I am confused. Are you saying I never spoke to Marty? What is it, SPECIFICALLY, that I lied about? The TIC tests being tentative and not quantitative or analytical? The only time I have quoted Marty is from his writings in email, which I have on hand. Please, fill me in exactly on this suggestion of a lie having taken place.

    And what do you mean by "hearsay." I have only posted results from my tests and the lab's. I have not once had an opinion on the danger of the MO and have not been "running through the streets" yelling DANGER! If asking other's to imagine a half gram of MO in their BHO (this is based on Marty's results) is "running through the streets", well, then I apologize.

  4. #664
    Resident SkyHighLer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Medfield College of Technology, Department of Physical Chemistry
    Posts
    1,103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jackgastche View Post
    My experiment with the 6 cans turned into 10 cans. I weighed the cans prior to spraying them and after spraying them to make sure the weights were the same. On some of the cans, weights were not the same after emptying them even though nothing else would come out. I only ended up purging and weighing the 6 cans that ended up weighing the same due to time constraints.

    The first 3 cans were tie dye cans marked 5/12/2012. The weights were .04g , .04g and .06g. Not much variance for me on these 3 cans (all from same case)

    Next 3 cans were black label vector (normal non-tiedye) marked 5/13/2013. The weights were .03g, .04g, .04g. Again not much variance (all from same case).

    I don't believe this adds much, but at least we have more numbers. Any idea what the dates on your can was Sky (date is on bottom)?

    Also, I wonder if anyone else has trouble completely emptying cans minus a can tapper? I never would have noticed it if I hadn't weighed the cans so precisely before and after.
    Thank You!!!

    The only manufacture date I can find on the can I tested is on the bottom,
    AUTHENTIC VECTOR GAS 2013.04.06
    (tie dye can)

    I have case of Lucienne (DOM 16.07.13 13:26) I'll test a can and get the result up today.

    Folding over the top of the bag about an inch keeps it standing tall and open better. The plastic bag can easily generate static electricity, why I don't squirt directly into it, and why I don't touch or move it until all the butane is completely boiled off.
    Last edited by SkyHighLer; 11-09-2013 at 11:22 AM.

  5. #665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jackgastche View Post
    My experiment with the 6 cans turned into 10 cans. I weighed the cans prior to spraying them and after spraying them to make sure the weights were the same. On some of the cans, weights were not the same after emptying them even though nothing else would come out. I only ended up purging and weighing the 6 cans that ended up weighing the same due to time constraints.

    The first 3 cans were tie dye cans marked 5/12/2012. The weights were .04g , .04g and .06g. Not much variance for me on these 3 cans (all from same case)

    Next 3 cans were black label vector (normal non-tiedye) marked 5/13/2013. The weights were .03g, .04g, .04g. Again not much variance (all from same case).

    I don't believe this adds much, but at least we have more numbers. Any idea what the dates on your can was Sky (date is on bottom)?

    Also, I wonder if anyone else has trouble completely emptying cans minus a can tapper? I never would have noticed it if I hadn't weighed the cans so precisely before and after.
    NICE! yes, this is helpful. those amounts are closer to what I have found as an average with 60 and 79 can runs. .06 and .04 and .03 are, respectively, 326ppm, 217ppm, and 163ppm. This is compared to the 2.8ppm that GW has reported finding in Vector and the 800+ that the lab is reporting.

  6. #666

    Default

    Open can blasting is passe now that closed loop is available and the knowledge is spreading. I know they are pricey, just relieve yourself of some of that wonderful heady glass, and buy one. As one wise producer put it, "give a hoot, run closed loop!"

  7. #667
    Brule's Rules Jackie Papers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Phototron Industries Ltd.
    Posts
    5,334

    Default

    The tit-for-tat shit has taken this thread off the rails.
    Important discussion but finding trustworthy info in this thread has become burdensome.

    Also, spraying into ziplocs seems sketchy. Are you taring each one or assuming a standard tare weight?
    Kiss me, I'm legal! ┌П┐(_)┌П┐
    "In the abundance of water, the fool is thirsty..." Bob Marley Rat Race
    I don't smoke trees any more, just the sap.

  8. #668

    Default

    Tare individually. Seems sketchy to some maybe, but this is done in university chem labs for lessons. Granted they use a fume hood as well, but it is not as bad as it may sound.

  9. #669
    Resident SkyHighLer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Medfield College of Technology, Department of Physical Chemistry
    Posts
    1,103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackie Papers View Post
    The tit-for-tat shit has taken this thread off the rails.
    Important discussion but finding trustworthy info in this thread has become burdensome.

    Also, spraying into ziplocs seems sketchy. Are you taring each one or assuming a standard tare weight?
    Cheapest generic supermarket one gallon ziplock bag, cut the ziplock off, fold up, place on .01 or .001 scale, record tare weight, fold over the top one inch to the outside, place in a pyrex dish, place the pyrex dish in another dish, squirt a full can of ~300ml butane lighter refill into a quart Mason jar as per the video, pour the liquid butane into the plastic bag, add warm water to the larger dish, after boil off vacuum purge the bag, fold the bag, place on scale, record weight, deduct tare weight from final weight, post result to Toke City Forums Mystery Oil thread. TIA!!!

    Freeze the can of butane and the Mason jar by placing in the freezer for a couple of hours before the test to maximize the amount of liquid butane collected.

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by SkyHighLer; 11-23-2013 at 01:18 PM.

  10. #670
    Senior Member Graywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    River City
    Posts
    787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysteryOil View Post
    The math is simple, GW. Just a little adding, multiplying, and division. The results are already posted. Feel free to run the math. I have. THe labs results were extraordinarily high. On average 828ppm for vector and 1157ppm for Newport. Suspiciously high. I collected only a fraction (in ppm) of that in my tests. And you collected only fractions of what I collected. Again the numbers are posted. Feel free to run the math.

    With regard to legally challenging the lighter refill companies, I don't think they care or need to. It states clearly on all cans that they are for the sole purpose of filling lighters. That would be like kids huffin' on fuel and then suing Chevron cause it is bad for them. I don't think intentionally misusing a product leaves any room for lawsuits. If it were labeled for the use of extraction--like the $450 50# SFE (supercritical fluid extraction) grade co2 tanks available through airgas--and they were found to be contaminated, then I could see having some legal ground to stand on. But, in the case of lighter refill cans advertised as lighter refill cans, this is not the case.
    You have just demonstrated another reason why we don't work well together, and that is your smart mouth and condescending attitude brother MO.

    The math is simple, and in fact so simple that I had to do it for you the first time and I don't hear any statistical analysis numbers coming from you, so I infer you didn't do them and encourage you to stick to the issue at hand if cooperation is your goal.

    If cooperation isn't your goal, this conversation is over, because I have no time for games.

    I obviously also can't use your numbers, because the certified chain of custody has been broken, and I can't verify your math without doing it myself.

    Why would you consider your word gospel, when no legal system in the world would, without reviewing your source material and doing the math.

    We also need to triangulate with two more labs so solidify our position, because their labs will say our labs are full of it.

    It doesn't surprise me that you have no intention of following through with new findings, as your goal doesn't appear to be to resolve the problem, but to draw publicity from it.

    I on the other hand, am the bete noir they called to resolve such issues before retirement, so I will proceed with pursuing a fix.

    The legal issue is blatant mislabeling, not its suitability for other purposes. I didn't realize you were also a legal expert, in addition to your other expertise's.

    I'm surprised, as such an expert, that you would interpret the truth in labeling laws that way, or are so naive as to believe that all the XXXXXXXX's that are appearing on lighter cans, are not intended to capture the extraction market?

    All you have to do is release the data Monday, I believe I have the training and experience to carry my own ball at the Fortune 500 level. If you can't, you probably would be wise to not be standing in the way.
    A posse, ad esse.

    From possibility to realization.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •