Cold maceration of tobacco

[Str8vision]

How can you tell if a filter is nominal or has better capabilities in filtration? Is there a code number I can look for? Is there some type of chart for filter burst resistance?
Can you tell I have no clue what I'm talking about? Can anyone give or direct me to a short tutorial on filters?
Thanks.

I'm certainly no expert but will share what I have read.

There are chemical compatibility charts for filter material available on-line but PG/VG/WATER poses no compatibility issues for any of the filters materials you might use. PGA is compatible with almost all filter membranes except MCE (nitrocellulose). Wet strength (burst), is only important when using vacuum or positive pressure to process the liquid. Manufacturers like Ahlstrom often indicate which filters are suitable for those applications with such information occasionally available on Amazon in the product's description. McMaster Carr provides some good engineering data but their offerings are a bit expensive. The 2 micron Ahlstrom filters I use are Grade 642 and have a high wet strength so could be used in vacuum and positive pressure applications but I personally see no reason to do so, gravity works just fine.

I wouldn't get hung up on which filters are "nominally" rated VS those that are absolute. It only really matters in critical applications. Nominally rated filters are around 98% efficient at retaining particles with a diameter equal to their designated rating when using gravity flow. Their efficiency can drop to as low as 94% when used under heavy vacuum or positive pressure. Even so, they will still retain close to 100% of the particles that are larger than their designated rating. For example the 5 micron poly felt filter many of us use is "nominally" rated and should retain around 98% of the 5 micron particles and around 100% of those above 5 microns in diameter. According to the manufacturer, repeatedly cleaning and reusing the filter felt will result in reduced filtering efficiency.

Hope this helps.

 

[regal55]

I've got to see this 2 micron setup. Do you have any photo's? Any camera meaureaments as far as opacity with the digital cam to prove that its really taking more out. . Sounds very cumbersom

I'm looking for part numbers for the glass funnel, the ring, ring stad, etc. But I undertand some don't like to share

 

[johni]

I'm looking for part numbers for the glass funnel, the ring, ring stad, etc. But I undertand some don't like to dhare

Plastic funnels (from Walmart) that sit atop pint beer glasses. No fancy stuff needed. How's that for sharing (or dharing?)?

ETA: Dude, learn how to use spell-check!!!!!!

 

[papabogart]

I'm looking for part numbers for the glass funnel, the ring, ring stad, etc. But I undertand some don't like to dhare

No stand or ring involved.

Pick your poison:
Amazon.com: canning funnel: Home & Kitchen

 

[regal55]

My current filtering setup is nothing more than a canning funnel with 2 micron qualitative filter paper inside sitting on top of a canning jar. Gravity and time do all the work. Quite under-whelming from a technical point of view, which is just the way I prefer it whenever/wherever possible. While not a photo of my actual setup, here is a link showing an essentially similar one; http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QtAF8yQTJKQ/TJjDUMl6WZI/AAAAAAAAAXc/VZVRrC3t2Pg/s1600/DSC02687.JPG
Why use a canning funnel? Because I had one on hand and like the way it sits inside AND on top of canning jars, very stable, plus it's liquid capacity (800ml), far exceeds my humble needs.

Sorry but I didn't take any before/after photo's of the filtered extract. Pretty sure bet that when filtering a liquid known to contain "plant matter", higher levels of filtration will remove particulates that lower levels of filtration miss. The real question is; will removing particulates smaller than 5 microns produce a NET that you like better? The answer, I believe, is subjective and dependent on the personal preferences of the observer and perhaps even on the tobacco and or extraction process used. For me the answer was yes. Many people are perfectly happy with just filtering through cotton balls which, from what I've read, is equivalent to about 15 microns. That's one of the things I truly like about DIY NETs, you can have it your way.

Do you have more photos, I don't see pleated flolds, and why the cotton towels?


Also wiki the difference between qualitative and quantitative filtering.

I don't mean to be negative nancy here but any non-presurrized filtrate of anything more than cellulose in methanol is un heard of. What you are using do no vacuum, no pressure is unheard of in the scientific community. And maybe that's the explanation you are taking out cellulose?

Do you see any real improvements via digital cameral against a white back ground (proof, if you do I'm in.) Otherwise sounds like cold fusion.

 

[regal55]

http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm294/regal55/paperfilters_zpsca081bcf.png


Instad of walmart engineering this is what I plan to use so everyone can see:

 

[JAWS]

Received my Pipes & Cigars package a few day ago. Today I had some extra time to put everything together. I'm happy with these , they smell GREAT. Come 10/6/2014 I should be happier : ))
Thank you johni for starting this post, and everyone for sharing!!!


Sent by i from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[johni]

JAWS, you have some awesome stuff brewing! Welcome to our crazy little club.

 

[JAWS]

Thanks johni, been lurking for awhile decided to give the a try one more time. I like what you got going on here, teaching the community how to survive. I believe most of these flavors came from this thread, so thanks again!!


Sent by i from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Str8vision]

Do you have more photos, I don't see pleated flolds, and why the cotton towels?


Also wiki the difference between qualitative and quantitative filtering.

I don't mean to be negative nancy here but any non-presurrized filtrate of anything more than cellulose in methanol is un heard of. What you are using do no vacuum, no pressure is unheard of in the scientific community. And maybe that's the explanation you are taking out cellulose?

Do you see any real improvements via digital cameral against a white back ground (proof, if you do I'm in.) Otherwise sounds like cold fusion.

You need to go back and re-read my response to you concerning the photo. It reads: While NOT a photo of MY actual setup, here is a link showing an ESSENTIALLY SIMILAR one. The photo is of a common canning funnel sitting in a common canning jar. Why the towels? probably to protect the table surface from any spills, I use towels too, PG and VG are hard on wood finishes.

"Qualitative Filter Paper" is what all the filter manufacturers call it, not my label, but I think they probably have a pretty good grasp on the terminology, don't you?

Your command of the English language failed you in the next paragraph but it appears you doubt anything but methanol will flow through cellulose filter paper without vacuum or pressure assistance. Anything else would be unheard of in the scientific community? If that is an accurate interpretation of your statement I can tell you that you're absolutely wrong. I'm not the first home extractor to "gravity" flow their extract through qualitative filter Paper, just one of the latest. Gravity flow certainly isn't as fast as vacuum or positive pressure, it takes hours, but for those not in a hurry, it works just fine.

As for digital camera "proof", I have a much better idea. Why don't you get some qualitative Filter Paper, fold it for pleating, put it in a funnel, set the funnel in the mouth of a jar and pour PG into the filter. Wait an hour or two and observe the results. There is no better proof than "first-hand" observation. Once you see that PG will in fact flow through qualitative Filter Paper using gravity alone, we can get to work on that little "cold fusion" problem.

 

[Str8vision]

http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm294/regal55/paperfilters_zpsca081bcf.png


Instad of walmart engineering this is what I plan to use so everyone can see:

Good choices, should work just fine. Same 2 micron qualitative Filter Paper that I used and Amazon had the best price I could find. The funnel however is no better or worse than what you could actually get at "Walmart", it's a "plastic" funnel.

 

[regal55]

Qualitative means you are filtering out a couple mg's to run thru the gc/mc to determine qualitatively wat it is, is is usuallthe start of that process. In other words its an analytical tool with no expectation of yield

Quantitative filtering is filtering a certain amount to obtain a sample. We want to do is quantitative filtering, but its not easy to do at home. Its best with vacuum or little pumps especially with circulation.

At home use of either is a compromise to cleanup nets. I have great results using a turkey injector pushing thru a 5 micron piece of felt prefiltered with rayon.Repeating several times (recirculation.) I just use this to drip but want to try your unorthodox method to get longer life out of KFL's.

 

[Ian444]

Received my Pipes & Cigars package a few day ago. Today I had some extra time to put everything together. I'm happy with these , they smell GREAT. Come 10/6/2014 I should be happier : ))
Thank you johni for starting this post, and everyone for sharing!!!

Wow Jaws what a beautiful pic! Looks great! Any questions just ask, except filtering techniques and equipment have been pretty well covered the last day or so

A quick tip - check you have enough spare bottles to make up juice samples, and also enough for extract storage.

 

[JAWS]

Thank Ian444 for the tips. I'm making a list as I read. I figure I have a few weeks to get everything I need. I have some bottles in various sizes, but will be searching for new one.


Sent by i from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[papabogart]

The Aeropress will not work with the 5 micron felt without extensive modification.

 

[billherbst]

The Aeropress will not work with the 5 micron felt without extensive modification.

That's what I assumed from the design of the Aeropress. The 5-micron poly felt seems ideal for the French Press method or hand-pump vacuum lab setup, although it should work equally well for gravity filtering, just more slowly.

 

[Str8vision]

Cornell & Diehl's "Mississippi Mud" is a Cavendish, Latakia and Perique blend. Macerated in a 90/10 PG/PGA solvent blend, two weeks into a long term room temperature soak I pulled a few drops for in-process sampling. The flavor was profound, reminiscent of fully steeped "Billy Bud" but MUCH more intense. At just two weeks it already boasts one of the strongest flavor profiles I have encountered.

 

[Ian444]

Good to hear about the Misssisssippi Mud Str8, in that its strong. Possibly the 10% PGA helps in bringing flavor out a bit faster, we will find out after enough experiments. The reviews of that blend are good from a vaping perspective.

Today I put in 5 small macerations using 10% PGA in the PG solvent, but they are hot macerations so I can try out the 2.5 micron filters ASAP that Johni generously sent me (shipping to Oz is big bucks otherwise). I have not found any noticeable difference in flavor between hot and cold, so I did hot to speed things up. I have a couple of cold ones running and one of them is close to ready, maybe next week. 2 of today's 5 are C & D's, Star of the East and Habana Daydream, another 2 are Gawith and Hoggarth ropes, Rum Twist and Brown Bogie (looking for burnt rubber and diesel fumes with these), and lastly a Peter Stokkebye Turkish (basically a cigarette blend I think but not sure, I don't mind the odd ciggy blend).

Plus I bought a clearo to do gunking tests for cotton vs 2.5 micron filters, otherwise I wouldn't be able to give any meaningful feedback on the filters. I only use RDA's, and with cotton, so gunking levels are of little to no concern, change the wick every day or so and good to go. So with the Mini Protank II I will keep track of how many ml per coil until flavor drops off. Then run some juice from the 2.5 micron filter and see how that goes. First impressions of the protank, after a long abstinence, is dry cool vapor with reduced flavor but vapor production is not too bad. I prefer warmer moister vapor but I think I can manage. The coil in it is marked as 1.8 ohm but measures 2.05 ohm. I use 1.9 ohms in my RDA's with a mech mod. Here's a pic of the setup:

Experiments are fun, always something to learn

 

[farisjc]

Cornell & Diehl Billy Budd...I soaked that too...in fact its ready for filtration today! Can't wait

 

[MikeNice81]

I've been filtering two of my macerations today. I've got the Room 101 San Andres cigar and Milan Tobacconist Celebration nearly finished. Both are 100% PG soaks. I was thinking of using some PGA. However, I've been sitting on some juices that used PGA in the extraction for a couple of months. In my opinion they are semi reverse steepers. That great kick the PGA gives at first seems to wear off after a couple of months. It may be that the PGA was evaporated off well enough. However, they ended up getting flatter and slightly musky.

Tuesday I will filter out my H&H Sweet & Savory. I just don't have time today. With three micron filters I'm averaging about 11ml - 12ml per hour through the paper. So, it is taking about five hours for each maceration.