Ice water hash is a rip off !

[meds4me]

Thanks Skunk ! I tried to post more of the article only to get the dreaded " Server busy"....
The ol skool way i saw was using panty hose and dry ice to keep the water cold as i posted earlier. Secondly i love hash and prefer the jelly hash as best . RATHER ITS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF GREEDY BIZ PEEPS ~
The article "qoute by using mult. screens it actually dillutes the final product by 11 times

 

[Hick]

Actually if the plant material you use is not dry, it absorbs and water very readily during the soaking and becomes a limpy gimpy leaf that the triches dislodge from immediately with the mixing motion, you don't have to scrub anything off of a brittle twisted old dried up leaf. And the diminished potency that he meant was that the stalks that you throw away everytime YOU make hash are viable smoking material that contain THC and the scent and smell of the plant. They float see, so when you scoop the top of the bucket, you remove the floating stalks, and that only leaves you the bubbles that the stalks were attached to. It isn't peeing up a rope, it's valuable information... that has been met with 'peeing up a rope' remarks for a looooong time now. You're way more open minded than that, don't pooh pooh something for it's own sake. Learning is good.

What "stalks" are you talking about??.. the trichome stalks?.. I've not seen a trichome "part" float.. and any of the plant material is worthless. "ONE" screen does not seperate the heads, stalks, broken pieces, or remove the plant material in it's entirety. "Several" screens, however does/will.
If you pour your water through screens, it doesn't matter if the float or not. (If in fact they do) ALL particles in the water are removed, collected in one of the various sized meshes. Well, everything down to "25 microns"..

[SIZE=-1]A micron, short for micrometer, is a unit of measurement equal to one millionth of a meter. A micron is actually 0.000039 of an inch.

[/SIZE]
AND I don't agree with your 'dry material' statement in the least. You are wrong... dried material requires the abrasive action of the ice just as the green/fresh material does. Dry material allows more plant material to pass through screens "because" it is easier pulverized into minute particles that 'can' pass through the openings. Over agitating/mixing can cuase a deminish in the quality of the hash, because it contains more plant material.
"Peeing up a rope".. is "peeing up a rope"..

 

[SkunkPatronus]

What "stalks" are you talking about??.. the trichome stalks?.. I've not seen a trichome "part" float.. and any of the plant material is worthless. "ONE" screen does not seperate the heads, stalks, broken pieces, or remove the plant material in it's entirety. "Several" screens, however does/will.
If you pour your water through screens, it doesn't matter if the float or not. (If in fact they do) ALL particles in the water are removed, collected in one of the various sized meshes. Well, everything down to "25 microns".. [/size][/font]
AND I don't agree with your 'dry material' statement in the least. You are wrong... dried material requires the abrasive action of the ice just as the green/fresh material does. Dry material allows more plant material to pass through screens "because" it is easier pulverized into minute particles that 'can' pass through the openings. Over agitating/mixing can cuase a deminish in the quality of the hash, because it contains more plant material.
"Peeing up a rope".. is "peeing up a rope"..

The stalk is not worthless, it contains the flavours and smell of your plant, like the 'blueberry' or the 'pine' and such... and THC, in smaller amounts than the bubble head, but some. They do actually float. You are still thiniking like in the bags system, in this system you keep the material in the middle of the water, so that you get the 'floaters' and the 'sinkers', and you trap the material in the screens in the middle. It was like an adaptation of the really old method of just leaving your stuff in a jar, seiving it and waiting till you stuff sank and siphoned off the water on the top and drying what was on the bottom. Someone, the Joe guy, found out that the stalks flaoted and he wanted to keep them and so made a screen system and used colder water and tried to save both the bubbles and the stalks that break off and float. He like it. I do too. You use the finest screen you can, and the bubble bags are a huge improvement on that, but in my youth it was tights/pantyhose and fine mesh shower curtain and silks if they weren't too tight. You don't pour water thru until the 'floaters' are saved by siphon, or better the scoop mesh spoon thing that looked like a kids fish catcher. You don't agitate the heck out of it, it's more of a rolling thru the water in very cold water but without the abrasive portion of it. Mixing lite as it were. Not so much of the gooky limp plant material as you must be thinking... it's stays kind whole but limp and 'spinichy'. There's more than one way to skin a cat, no? It's actually a diluted percentage of THC, but the improvment is the taste sensation and the smell, might not mean anything at all to someone only seeking the high THC heads, and that's fine...

Actually an aside to the butane people, they harvest both the bubble heads and the triches, so their stuff has more taste adn smell than the bubbleheads, but i haven't built up the courage to use a chemical yet

And stop talking about pee :holysheep:

 

[SkunkPatronus]

What "stalks" are you talking about??.. the trichome stalks?.. I've not seen a trichome "part" float.. and any of the plant material is worthless. "ONE" screen does not seperate the heads, stalks, broken pieces, or remove the plant material in it's entirety. "Several" screens, however does/will.
If you pour your water through screens, it doesn't matter if the float or not. (If in fact they do) ALL particles in the water are removed, collected in one of the various sized meshes. Well, everything down to "25 microns".. [/size][/font]
AND I don't agree with your 'dry material' statement in the least. You are wrong... dried material requires the abrasive action of the ice just as the green/fresh material does. Dry material allows more plant material to pass through screens "because" it is easier pulverized into minute particles that 'can' pass through the openings. Over agitating/mixing can cuase a deminish in the quality of the hash, because it contains more plant material.
"Peeing up a rope".. is "peeing up a rope"..

I'm sorry, i just relaized why you sound so angry, i was responding to the article and you were responding to the heading of this thread! The heading is not quite right, it's not a that the bag's system is a rip off at all, it's just that the system of using water was ripped off, because they all called it new in the '80's and it's not a new system; the chinese made water hash 5000 years ago, and joe made water hash(as did my folks) in the 70's and the bag people patented 'water method' and did it in the 1980's. So the thread was named for the rip off of the patent use for the bags 'water method', that's what the article was actually about. The article also managed to insert that the bags do take the stuff that used to be left over that made it smell and taste better... and they use dried material instead of the easier undried material of before. Your hash is stronger, but His article was aimed at the fact that in the strenchghening of your product you are throwing away materials(stalks) that add a nice demention to your hash.

 

[BBFan]

The stalk is not worthless, it contains the flavours and smell of your plant, like the 'blueberry' or the 'pine' and such... and THC, in smaller amounts than the bubble head, but some. They do actually float. You are still thiniking like in the bags system, in this system you keep the material in the middle of the water, so that you get the 'floaters' and the 'sinkers', and you trap the material in the screens in the middle.

Hey there SkunkP-

I'm trying to follow along here but I think I need clarification:

When you mention stalks and bubble heads are you referring to bulbous and capitate stalked trichomes- or do you mean that the capitate stalked trichs break apart, leaving a "stalk" and a "head"?

And which of these things float? When I make bubble, the leaf matter floats and the trichs sink. The trichs fall through the larger screens and are collected by the finer screens.

So you're saying that the terpenes are in the "stalks"?

Just looking for some clarification.

Thanks.

 

[Hick]

..I'm sorry skunk.. not meaning to sound 'angry'.. but am trying to understand.
And I do better understand the title now! :doh:
As bbfan, clarification please. 'Cause I'm confused now..
There are 3 basic varieties of resin glands, bulbuous, capitate stalked, and capitate sessile. The bulbous being the smallest at 15-30 microns.
http://www.marijuanapassion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=92573&postcount=2

Are these the "stalks" that you refer to?..
If they float as you and the article claim, then I would say that is another area where the 'old school' falls short in it's process. But the bag method does not, or should not if correctly performed. Whether they float, sink, or fly, the multiple sized screens filter them out and collect them down to 25 micron.

The article "qoute by using mult. screens it actually dillutes the final product by 11 times

This only further confuses me. I don't understand "how" seperating the trichomes dillutes the potency. Furthermore, if the pure melt that I retrieve from my bags is "dilluted by 11 times", I don't know if I want to smoke 100% potency. :hubba:
but I feel like I'm totally missing something here... :confused2:


As far as the "gurus" owning the trade magazines and shows, and limiting, choosing who is allowed, what is revealed, ect. (kinda sounds like congress ehh?)
I don't doubt that "someone" came up with seiving and cold water for hash extraction, far prior to any patented products. BUT, so goes life in an illegal sub-culture. Don't we hear the same story from breeders?.. Stories of alleged rip-offs/knock-offs of genetics, strains, ect.?
"Intellectual and Patent infringement" .. :giggle:
"New and improved" ... methods and products show up on the shelves everyday. Should Karl Benz be pissed because Henry Ford utilized 'his' internal combustion engine ideas, made improvements and marketed the worlds first 'mass produced', affordable cars? ..and made himself wealthy..
Again, I feel like I'm missing the point...:confused2:

 

[meds4me]

I'm sorry all but , yes the tittle isnt quite right but atleast i got youre attention ~

 

[SkunkPatronus]

..I'm sorry skunk.. not meaning to sound 'angry'.. but am trying to understand.
And I do better understand the title now! :doh:
As bbfan, clarification please. 'Cause I'm confused now..
There are 3 basic varieties of resin glands, bulbuous, capitate stalked, and capitate sessile. The bulbous being the smallest at 15-30 microns.
http://www.marijuanapassion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=92573&postcount=2

Are these the "stalks" that you refer to?..
If they float as you and the article claim, then I would say that is another area where the 'old school' falls short in it's process. But the bag method does not, or should not if correctly performed. Whether they float, sink, or fly, the multiple sized screens filter them out and collect them down to 25 micron.
This only further confuses me. I don't understand "how" seperating the trichomes dillutes the potency. Furthermore, if the pure melt that I retrieve from my bags is "dilluted by 11 times", I don't know if I want to smoke 100% potency. :hubba:
but I feel like I'm totally missing something here... :confused2:


As far as the "gurus" owning the trade magazines and shows, and limiting, choosing who is allowed, what is revealed, ect. (kinda sounds like congress ehh?)
I don't doubt that "someone" came up with seiving and cold water for hash extraction, far prior to any patented products. BUT, so goes life in an illegal sub-culture. Don't we hear the same story from breeders?.. Stories of alleged rip-offs/knock-offs of genetics, strains, ect.?
"Intellectual and Patent infringement" .. :giggle:
"New and improved" ... methods and products show up on the shelves everyday. Should Karl Benz be pissed because Henry Ford utilized 'his' internal combustion engine ideas, made improvements and marketed the worlds first 'mass produced', affordable cars? ..and made himself wealthy..
Again, I feel like I'm missing the point...:confused2:

Joe and his articles and books are notoriously hard to read, due to his penchant for being tangential and fragmented. It's almost like he just has soooooo much info that he is unable to condense it, EVER. I do however think that i have probably read everything he's ever published or had circulated, so i have the basis of understanding that you guys aren't going to get thru this thread AT ALL. This thread has far too many different tracks and wording that isn't self explainatory that it's difficult. First the word 'dilute'. YOUR method, the ice, dried stuff, and lots of bags makes a final product of just THC. Obviously there's nothing 'dilute' about a pure product...you have to stretch yourself around that corner some... The author was refereing to a diluted form of 'hash'. Hash as we know it/once knew it contains both the bubble tops and the stalk that held it to the plant. It is the diluted form of THC, but it is in fact a nicer smelling and tasting hash because of the inclusion of the stalks with the bubbles.
The stalk referred to is the stem under the bubble head, they break apart and separate from both the plant and each other, the round bubble sinks and the stalk floats...surfactant levels and all that, in glycerine they both float. If you have them in your water, then when you pour your water thru your bag system, you will have them in your bags somewhere; key word is 'if', because most people line the bucket with all of the bags and them pull off the top one and just rinse more water thru it and then chuck the contents and that means that they tiny floaters/stalks mostly get tossed. Your sieved out fantastic 'bubble'hash and it's all THC, which is what many folks like, but it used to have a flavour and a smell and it was hashy. Bubble stuff isn't hashy. The new system diluted the hash, but not potency per weight.
The other stuff at issue revolves around expected norms. Like bras for instance, they were invented by a man, obviously as they are like cramming soft things in a razor linned trap, but they are now the expected 'norm' for woman's wear, and they were sold to the masses as an improvement. Other 'improvements' are cardboard food that you can store for a hundred years and anything a drug company patents. So the expected 'norm' for the bags is the ice, they state that it knocks the heads off. It's accepted fact. Well when they patented the water method that was 5000 years old, the patent office said that it had to be 'different' water, they they added ice to the reciepie so that it was patentable. When they had to come up with a good reason for it's addition, they made one up. That's when they tried it with the fresh plant material and noticed that they had a dissaster of their hands... it's pulverized the plant matter. So they then changed it to state dry plant matter only, and ice so that it could be patented, and they combo works to take the triches off of dried plant matter... which leads to the next problem. Fresh plant matter and cold water without ice will extract more heads and stalks than the dried plant matter and water and ice and heavy duty mixing. Flame on big boy, i'll wrap ya in your shower hat
So the word dilute becomes usable again, but refering to whole yeild per plant. Joe used fresh plants and thinks that dried plant make less whole yeild. So it's all apples and oranges and kind of fragmented but it comes from the, i know you hate 'old school', pantyhose of old. Joe used dry matter in pantyhose like everyone else, but discovered that fresh plant matter tied into a pantyhose foot and dropped into a big bucket of ice cold water was better. He also discovered that if you can keep the hose in the middle of the bucket, you get to scoop off the 'floater', the stalks and drain the bucket to get the bubbles. This is when he started making screens and selling them. He also invented a mixing machine with a screen inside of it and stop cock on the bottom. Richard Delp, of the Xtractor 1000 went into business selling them, and telling everyone that he invented it. He patented a stolen invention. The bubble bags wars followed soon after, just like you said about the seed producers. But the basic point of this thread is that Joe Pietri thinks that hash without flavour dilutes what hash used to be. And he knows that ice is only necessary when you use dried bud, and that fresh released more of the stalks and heads into the water. Wet plant material doesn't put up much of a fight i guess.

Apples and oranges to some tho.

 

[BBFan]

First the word 'dilute'. YOUR method, the ice, dried stuff, and lots of bags makes a final product of just THC. Obviously there's nothing 'dilute' about a pure product...you have to stretch yourself around that corner some...

Hey Hick-

I'll go first.

I don't know who the "YOUR" you are speaking about- but I know that Hick, Subcool, and some other experienced people only use fresh material when making bubble hash.

Your sieved out fantastic 'bubble'hash and it's all THC, which is what many folks like, but it used to have a flavour and a smell and it was hashy. Bubble stuff isn't hashy. The new system diluted the hash, but not potency per weight.

I'm sorry SkunkPatronus, but this is simply not a true statement. While most (hopefully all) of the leaf matter is screened out in the final sieve through the 25 micron bag, the end product is not just THC. All cannabinoids are present in the "capitate stalked" gland- it's not pure THC- there are also plastids that contain different hydrocarbons called terpenes. Terpenes give the aromas and tastes we love. Additionally, all other cannabinoids are found in these glands.

Different screenings along the way (starting, for me anyway, at the 73 micron bag) produce different grades of hash. In my youth, I purchased many different grades and types of hash. Upon reflection, for me anyways, the best tasting hash is the final sieve- it has a more concentrated flavor of those tastes that I always remember enjoying in hash smoking (the other effects being incidental ).

I don't know what the cells in the "stalks" contain- I think they are basal and stipe cells- and how those impact taste and contribute to the expected "norms" you refer to.

I enjoy both apples and oranges (and bras and no bras too!).

 

[Hick]

Well when they patented the water method that was 5000 years old, the patent office said that it had to be 'different' water, they they added ice to the reciepie so that it was patentable. When they had to come up with a good reason for it's addition, they made one up. That's when they tried it with the fresh plant material and noticed that they had a dissaster of their hands... it's pulverized the plant matter. So they then changed it to state dry plant matter only, and ice so that it could be patented, and they combo works to take the triches off of dried plant matter... which leads to the next problem. Fresh plant matter and cold water without ice will extract more heads and stalks than the dried plant matter and water and ice and heavy duty mixing. Flame on big boy, i'll wrap ya in your shower hat

"flame" ??? .. I produce and quote facts, not some mumbo-jumbo bull crap from some butt hurt wannabe that nobody has even heard of. How was that?..:rofl:

Honestly skunk', I am not attempting to flame or discount your beliefes. BUT.. you are stateing a few things that simply are not true, and seem to becoming frustrated in your attempt to explain/prove your claims. And THAT I can and will dispute. I have nothing against "old school" or pantyhose for that matter. (though in all honesty, I've NEVER tried a pair myself. I much preferred the 'old school' leg make up, remember that?)

If the cold water/ice method is/was "ripped off" from some unknown 5,000 years ago. Where does Joe Blow get the idea that "he" has any right to claim "infringements"??
Not that it really matters, because as far as I'm concerned, that isn't the point in question or the facts that I'm concerned with. But it seems like saying I'm going to sue BF Goodrich because they make rubber tires, when obviously some guy 10,000 years ago invented the wheel.
But beyond that. I still disagree. "YOUR" multi-bag method or perception of, must be flawed. I don't care how you use the bags. If the water passes through the 25 micron screen, "it filters out EVERYTHING larger than 25 microns" Whether you pour the water through it or you have them 'stacked' and pull the bag up out of the water and drain it, or if you pump it through with a 5 hp briggs 'n stratton, whether they are suspended in the water or if they sink like a rock... It still works the same way, it "filters/removes and collects" those heads, stalks, plant matter, bugs, ect. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING over 25 microns. They are NOT lost. To say that they are is simply ludicrous. I'm sorry, but like the B'bags and the panthose, that theory doesn't hold water..
I have purchased and smoked my fair share of 70' and 80's hash, so I'm not speaking from lack of experience. You aren't discussing this with a teenager. "MY" bubble hash doesn't lack in flavor or potency from my memory. And in fact, the predominate first words from anyone that has sampled my bubble hash, (directly after the coughing, hacking, and eye wiping) is usually "WoW!!.. that tastes GOOOOD." And I only smoke with "old heads", no youngsters in my peer group.
"Rubbed" hash, or hash collected by rubbing the plant and then scraping or rolling the collected resins from hands, also contains oils from the hands, dirt, skin, bugs, hair, ect.
Similar goes with the "old school" seived hash. Was it 'ever' collected and pressed under "clean, un-polluted" conditions? Maybe that is the lacking factor contributing to the missing flavor you seem so intent on, foreign materials...

I in no way, have a "dog in this fight", as far as 'patents', bubble bag promotion or panthose. I don't care!....... But I am a discounting the false claim that a 25 micron bag allows particles larger than 25 microns to escape, be "lost".

 

[WeedHopper]

:yeahthat: :watchplant: