Passive Butane Extractor and Reclaimer

[Gray Wolf]

Wow!!! I am never short of amazed by your work Grey Wolf, the Lil Terp is no exception...

Even though I am extremely happy with my Terpenator, I forsee myself building a Lil Terp for use in the "Enabler" configuration to supply alcohol for my Terp; not to mention having a unit perfectly suited for those preciously small "nug runs" not large enough to run the Terp.

I can't thank you enough for another great design GW; I feel like I should be sweeping up your shop floor and scrubbing toilets to get an apprenticeship like you have provided here...


Last and certainly least, I am a little confused by the area of a circle formula above; I thought Radius squared x pie = Area

Thanks for the good thoughts bro!

Pi X radius squared works, as does does .7854 Diameter squared. I just prefer to use the 78.54% of a square with the same width and height.

IE: A 10" circle would have an area of 78.54 square inches at 10 X 10 X .7854= 78.54.

5" radius X 5" radius X 3.14159 = 78.53975.

 

[Flying High]

I obviously didn't do enough trig homework in school, and ate way too much pie; pardon my ignorance...

I kinda thunk something was up when you used the .7854 multiplier, which is what stumpted me when I glanced it over. Thank you for taking the time to explain that, I really appreciate it...

Any sneak peaks at the Vac oven concept and what I am guessing is a Rotary Evaporator, when you said Rotovape?

 

[mendo420]

Nice work!

I love my TE-175.
But I'll put my money on you. I bet you win.
Cant wait for the results.

 

[Gray Wolf]

I obviously didn't do enough trig homework in school, and ate way too much pie; pardon my ignorance...

I kinda thunk something was up when you used the .7854 multiplier, which is what stumpted me when I glanced it over. Thank you for taking the time to explain that, I really appreciate it...

Any sneak peaks at the Vac oven concept and what I am guessing is a Rotary Evaporator, when you said Rotovape?

Hee, hee, hee, really simple minded, as usual!

Consider that if you take the Lil Terp butane holding tank, and simply set it in a hot water or oil bath, you are in control of its internal temperature.

If you put a Petrie dish of oil inside and pull a vacuum on it, you are in control of not only the temperature, but the atmospheric pressure, just like a vacuum oven.

Consider that if you cut a new lid out of thick Lexan, you could watch.

For a rotovape, consider making a lid with a hollow shaft, which you could spin the Lil Terp cylinder on, and pull a vacuum through the shaft using a rotary union.

The motor driven shaft would pass through bearings on pinions, which would allow the cylinder to rotate and tilt an angle on its side in a hot oil bath and turn.

 

[Flying High]

Wow!!! I really love the elegance of your Lil Terp design; the various configurations such as the Enabler really put this system in a league of it's own.

I am really interested in the Rotovape option you just described. To make sure I am on the right page, spinning the Lil Terp cylinder will allow the oil inside to coat the walls of the cylinder, increasing usable surface area during purge?

I have noticed that layers of oil as thin as an 1/8" can be difficult to effeciently purge; I know thin film purging has been discussed previously, but I feel like a Rotovape may be a great solution for increasing usable surface area as well as maintaining a consistent layer thickness...

Assuming I am on the same page with the Rotovape, do you think a rebuilt Ford Long-shaft Starter motor would provide enough RPM to evenly distribute the layer of oil inside? I'm just brainstorming and have experience using Starter motors for other tasks in the past...

thank you so much for all of your contributions
H

 

[Gray Wolf]

Wow!!! I really love the elegance of your Lil Terp design; the various configurations such as the Enabler really put this system in a league of it's own.

I am really interested in the Rotovape option you just described. To make sure I am on the right page, spinning the Lil Terp cylinder will allow the oil inside to coat the walls of the cylinder, increasing usable surface area during purge?

I have noticed that layers of oil as thin as an 1/8" can be difficult to effeciently purge; I know thin film purging has been discussed previously, but I feel like a Rotovape may be a great solution for increasing usable surface area as well as maintaining a consistent layer thickness...

Assuming I am on the same page with the Rotovape, do you think a rebuilt Ford Long-shaft Starter motor would provide enough RPM to evenly distribute the layer of oil inside? I'm just brainstorming and have experience using Starter motors for other tasks in the past...

thank you so much for all of your contributions
H

Thanks for the good thoughs bro!

I think that you would have to either gear the starter motor down or use a reostat to control rpm. Too high an rpm wouldn't hurt the film inside the drum, but might throw water or oil from the hot bath. Rotovapes are usually slow rpm processes.

An easier solution might be an angle head gear motor from Grainger, or the like. Say maybe 60 rpms or so?

I just called Rochelle at Glacier Tank and placed an order for a 6"X6" sanitary spool to use in the experiment and others. She guessed at $97, but they haven't been released by Seattle Customs yet. Hopefully yet this week.

 

[alamony2005]

This is incredible, im glad my tami is out of my hands for now... I want one of these incredible devices.

 

[Flying High]

GW, I really hope Tamisium takes you up on your most generous offer; your response was not just professional, but inspiring in terms of your grace under fire... In my opinion, your Lil Terp looks to have several advantages over the TE-175, not accounting for the cost; anyone who turns down the offer for free consulting from Grey Wolf in my eye's is crazy; especially since you are basically offering a better designed system in exchange for a product for those who need it most...

Very interesting notes on the Rotovape process. Initially I remembered spinning down blood in a Centerfuge in another life as a phlebotomist; for some reason I was picturing a high RPM Rotovape similar to one of those Centerfuges from the lab...

In general practice, are Rotary Evaporators trying to evenly distribute a thin film on the entire inside surface thru centrifugal force; or is the function more like a kief Tumbler, in that the oil pools in the lowest spot and is constantly turned over via the drum rotation, but not meant to coat the entire drum evenly?

I can imagine either technique providing several advantages during the final vacuum purge; especailly if less heat is required to fully purge the solvent... Intuitively, a lower rpm tumbler style system seems the most practical to build. I'm pretty sure a starter motor would be way overkill for this application, but it sounded cool.... I will post some prints once I settle on a design for this soon to be rotating Lil Terp...

I am so intersted in the Rotovape because I have not been satisfied with my results purging the deeper pools of oil the Terpenator provides. The amount of time and heat required to purge oil seems to increase exponentialy as the amount increases. In my smaller 6" diameter chamber, I can fully purge seven grams of oil in a few hours at 110F or less, while 15 grams took a few days to reach the same bubble free state.
While the Binks pressure pots are great units, the bowl shaped bottom does not seem suitable for thin film purging; especially if you run more than one column full of material. As of now, I am using two seperate chambers to vacuum purge, but I still do not have enough surface area to purge an entire Terp run in one go around...
I have been contemplating building a vacuum oven large enough to hold three or more 9x13 Pyrex dishes; but I ran out of space in the lab a while ago, and I can't seem to find a suitable permanent location for said oven. I like the idea of a modular unit capable of more than one task...

 

[Gray Wolf]

In general practice, are Rotary Evaporators trying to evenly distribute a thin film on the entire inside surface thru centrifugal force; or is the function more like a kief Tumbler, in that the oil pools in the lowest spot and is constantly turned over via the drum rotation, but not meant to coat the entire drum evenly?

...

Thanks for the good thoughts!

They work more like a tumbler, where the film continuously climbs the wall and slides back down. Combined with a vacuum, they are highly effective.

 

[CurbsideService]

Hey GW,
Your threads are best and just want to thank you for sharing all that you do, and not hoarding all your great information!

I got some very cool new projects! Ill get some pics up soon! Plus I need to spend some time picking your brain!

 

[Gray Wolf]

Hey GW,
Your threads are best and just want to thank you for sharing all that you do, and not hoarding all your great information!

I got some very cool new projects! Ill get some pics up soon! Plus I need to spend some time picking your brain!

Thanks for the good thoughts and feel free to whatever there is to pick from my alleged brain.

Always fun to brainstorm new stuff!

Hee, hee, hee, awhoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!1

 

[Gray Wolf]

Some updates to report and a request for help from one of ya'll clever brothers and sisters, who can do patent pending searches.

Couple of thangs! Lil Terp received a local challenge from a proud Tamisium Te-175 owner, but when we tried to do the shoot off, he had forgotten his loading adapter, and we were unable to jury rig to fill from one of our tanks.

I committed to picking up some Dixon quick disconnects to facilitate loading next time, and we rescheduled for the following week. Alas, he is no longer answering his e-mail or phone messages, so not sure what happened.

Here is a picture of the two systems together, to give you an idea of size. If any of ya'll other local Tami owners are up for a runoff comparison, please drop me a line.

The second thang that happened, was that I received the following notice on our Skunk Pharm site and on our Facebook from Tamisium's attorney, giving notice that Tamisium's owner had filed for patent:

Submitted on 2012/08/29 at 3:24 PM

Dear Sir/Mam: SkunkPharmresearch.com

This letter is to provide you with NOTICE of Pending US Patent Application
Patent Pending 61/217,911, which is owned by my client David McGhee.
You should contact your own attorney immediately.

Giving away free information is of course not in violation of his patent, which hasn't been approved anyway, and even if it is, as there is no commerce and free speech is a First Amendment right.

I am passing this on because even after extended dialog, both Steve and Dave steadfastly refused to divulge exactly what aspects they are attempting to patent, and I was unable to Google the application to find out for myself. It would behoove anyone building Lil Terps to sell or use in commerce , to pay close attention to his patent application, as they would be affected by it.

The other reason for passing this on, is to ask one of ya'll brothers and sisters with the knowledge and talent, to pull up their patent application so we can see why they are being so secretive about ostensible public information.

Secrecy while rattling sabers, just makes me suspicious that they might be trying to patent common practices that would affect even folks running Terpenators or any other recycle system.

I don't knowingly violate legitimate patents, but patenting common practice would not be legitimate and the time to legally block any such efforts, would be now.

 

[whodare]

What Can Be Patented

The patent law specifies the general field of subject matter that can be patented and the conditions under which a patent may be obtained.
In the language of the statute, any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent,” subject to the conditions and requirements of the law. The word “process” is defined by law as a process, act or method, and primarily includes industrial or technical processes. The term “machine” used in the statute needs no explanation. The term “manufacture” refers to articles that are made, and includes all manufactured articles. The term “composition of matter” relates to chemical compositions and may include mixtures of ingredients as well as new chemical compounds. These classes of subject matter taken together include practically everything that is made by man and the processes for making the products.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 excludes the patenting of inventions useful solely in the utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy in an atomic weapon. See 42 U.S.C. 2181(a).
The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be “useful.” The term “useful” in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent.


Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter that can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter.
A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required.






Novelty And Non-Obviousness, Conditions For Obtaining A Patent

In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: “(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,” or “(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . .”

If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere in the world, or if it was known or used by others in this country before the date that the applicant made his/her invention, a patent cannot be obtained. If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere, or has been in public use or on sale in this country more than one year before the date on which an application for patent is filed in this country, a patent cannot be obtained. In this connection it is immaterial when the invention was made, or whether the printed publication or public use was by the inventor himself/herself or by someone else. If the inventor describes the invention in a printed publication or uses the invention publicly, or places it on sale, he/she must apply for a patent before one year has gone by, otherwise any right to a patent will be lost. The inventor must file on the date of public use or disclosure, however, in order to preserve patent rights in many foreign countries.

Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious. The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention. For example, the substitution of one color for another, or changes in size, are ordinarily not patentable.

i dont know that anything he would try and patent would fall under these guidelines.

im pretty sure essential oil extraction methods have all been patented and are expired.

here's one for butane extraction.
http://www.google.com/patents/US2158670?pg=PA1&dq=essential+oil+butane&hl=en#v=onepage&q=essential%20oil%20butane&f=false


i dont know what he would patent, maybe the passive process, but that seems like an unfruitful angle.

maybe some of his components are proprietary?

other than that he may just be trying to patent it and seems likely to fail, but i dont know a shred about patent law so i'm really just talkin out the side of my neck.

either way yours uses parts available, so i doubt it would be an infringement to produce them for sale, but again, wtfdik?

 

[G.O. Joe]

You want US patents, go to the US Patent Office.

You have to install a viewer there. Europe gets pdf.

 

[Gray Wolf]

You want US patents, go to the US Patent Office.

You have to install a viewer there. Europe gets pdf.

Thanks bro! I downloaded it and will study it closely.

With a June 9, 2011 filing date, it certainly doesn't preceed Foaf's 4-26-2006 butane recycle post by a year,

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=27954&highlight=Butane+recovery

nor my 2-7-2011 post on my Mk I test sled either for that matter.

Dave seems like a nice feller, so ostensibly he has filed for patent on other unique features, which we haven't already given for free to public domaine.

 

[Rickys bong]

Just a bit of pre-emptive scare tactics I think... I have a half dozen patents myself and have a fair bit of experience with the US patent system.

The Only thing you need to pay attention to is the claims.

That describes exactly what he is trying to protect. The fact that they were unwilling to discuss the patent with you speaks to the weakness of the application.

Three things are essential for an examiner to approve a patent.
It has to be unique (new), non obvious and useful.

Now keep in mind that the applicant only needs to convince the examiner that it hasn't been conceived before and the examiners don't search every possible medium, especially interweb discussion boards.

The non-obvious part is usually the hard part, trying to convince the examiner that your process is unique and nobody else could have come to a similar design by looking at previous extraction processes can prove difficult.

Now the desired trait for filing claims is to make them as broad as possible in the initial application and narrow the scope if necessary if the examiner rejects the claims.

The application in question has some narrow definitions on dimensions of tanks for example. Anything outside of those ratios won't fall under the protection of said patent.

Now the bizarre part I see is how his lawyer has written the application.

He seems to be trying to tell the examiner how to interpret the patent with the "Problem statement - interpretation considerations" section.
Even more bizarre is how he goes on to suggest in the "best mode interpretation considerations" that even though a process is only vaguely similar it should be covered by the patent.

I've read (in detail) at least three or four hundred patents and applications over the last ten years and have never seen something like this in an application.

In designing my own system I researched a bunch of extraction methods but I can't recall if any were similar and they are on another computer so I'll have to look at them tomorrow.

Now, I believe applications can also be challenged, so his pre-emptive attempt at patent enforcement could come back to bite him if uh... someone or persons were to send the examiner examples of prior art.

Lastly, he's only trying to patent the extraction process, not recovery.

The process of flowing a solvent through a column from a top tank to a lower tank is hardly unique...

If you go here: http://patft.uspto.gov/

In the center of the page is a link to PAIR, which gives the status of an application. It looks like he's already had to correct errors with his drawings but the patent has only been submitted for examination, it's not been examined yet.

A lot of patents go through several examinations, the examiner will object to a claim or part of a claim and send it back. An initial rejection does NOT mean it won't eventually get approved.

The way he's added the strange interpretation instructions may cause the examiner to quickly put this in the WTF is this shit pile and send it back.

Another flaw I see is not providing any prior art (previous similar patents) in the application. Usually a key part is providing similar designs and arguing why yours is unique.

I'll do a bit more research and get back to y'all.

In response to the letter from his lawyer, it's a "notice of application". Ask for clarification, I'd reply with "yes thank you but can you please clarify your intent. Here's a notice from someone else that they've published a picture of their hairy balls. I suggest you contact your attorney."

...sigh. OK, that's my 2 cents.

TL;DR:

-chill, it's bullshit.

 

[Rickys bong]

Just a bit of pre-emptive scare tactics I think... I have a half dozen patents myself and have a fair bit of experience with the US patent system.

The Only thing you need to pay attention to is the claims.

That describes exactly what he is trying to protect. The fact that they were unwilling to discuss the patent with you speaks to the weakness of the application.

Three things are essential for an examiner to approve a patent.
It has to be unique (new), non obvious and useful.

Now keep in mind that the applicant only needs to convince the examiner that it hasn't been conceived before and the examiners don't search every possible medium, especially interweb discussion boards.

The non-obvious part is usually the hard part, trying to convince the examiner that your process is unique and nobody else could have come to a similar design by looking at previous extraction processes can prove difficult.

Now the desired trait for filing claims is to make them as broad as possible in the initial application and narrow the scope if necessary if the examiner rejects the claims.

The application in question has some narrow definitions on dimensions of tanks for example. Anything outside of those ratios won't fall under the protection of said patent.

Now the bizarre part I see is how his lawyer has written the application.

He seems to be trying to tell the examiner how to interpret the patent with the "Problem statement - interpretation considerations" section.
Even more bizarre is how he goes on to suggest in the "best mode interpretation considerations" that even though a process is only vaguely similar it should be covered by the patent.

I've read at least three or four hundred patents and applications over the last ten years and have never seen something like this in an application.

In designing my own system I researched a bunch of extraction methods but I can't recall if any were similar and they are on another computer so I'll have to look at them tomorrow.

Now, I believe applications can also be challenged, so his pre-emptive attempt at patent enforcement could come back to bite him if uh... someone or persons were to send the examiner examples of prior art.

Lastly, he's only trying to patent the extraction process, not recovery.

The process of flowing a solvent through a column from a top tank to a lower tank is hardly unique...

If you go here: http://patft.uspto.gov/

In the center of the page is a link to PAIR, which gives the status of an application. It looks like he's already had to correct errors with his drawings but the patent has only been submitted for examination, it's not been examined yet.

A lot of patents go through several examinations, the examiner will object to a claim or part of a claim and send it back. An initial rejection does NOT mean it won't eventually get approved.

The way he's added the strange interpretation instructions may cause the examiner to quickly put this in the WTF is this shit pile and send it back.

Another flaw I see is not providing any prior art (previous similar patents) in the application. Usually a key part is providing similar designs and arguing why yours is unique.

I'll do a bit more research and get back to y'all.

In response to the letter from his lawyer, it's a "notice of application". Ask for clarification, I'd reply with "yes thank you but can you please clarify your intent. Here's a notice from someone else that they've published a picture of their hairy balls. I suggest you contact your attorney."

...sigh. OK, that's my 2 cents.

TL;DR:

-chill, it's bullshit.

 

[Rickys bong]

Crap! sorry for the double post, it came back with an error the first time I hit the button.
Why can't I edit my posts? (mods, plz delete the extra post)

 

[Gray Wolf]

Just a bit of pre-emptive scare tactics I think... I have a half dozen patents myself and have a fair bit of experience with the US patent system.

The Only thing you need to pay attention to is the claims.

That describes exactly what he is trying to protect. The fact that they were unwilling to discuss the patent with you speaks to the weakness of the application.

Three things are essential for an examiner to approve a patent.
It has to be unique (new), non obvious and useful.

Now keep in mind that the applicant only needs to convince the examiner that it hasn't been conceived before and the examiners don't search every possible medium, especially interweb discussion boards.

The non-obvious part is usually the hard part, trying to convince the examiner that your process is unique and nobody else could have come to a similar design by looking at previous extraction processes can prove difficult.

Now the desired trait for filing claims is to make them as broad as possible in the initial application and narrow the scope if necessary if the examiner rejects the claims.

The application in question has some narrow definitions on dimensions of tanks for example. Anything outside of those ratios won't fall under the protection of said patent.

Now the bizarre part I see is how his lawyer has written the application.

He seems to be trying to tell the examiner how to interpret the patent with the "Problem statement - interpretation considerations" section.
Even more bizarre is how he goes on to suggest in the "best mode interpretation considerations" that even though a process is only vaguely similar it should be covered by the patent.

I've read (in detail) at least three or four hundred patents and applications over the last ten years and have never seen something like this in an application.

In designing my own system I researched a bunch of extraction methods but I can't recall if any were similar and they are on another computer so I'll have to look at them tomorrow.

Now, I believe applications can also be challenged, so his pre-emptive attempt at patent enforcement could come back to bite him if uh... someone or persons were to send the examiner examples of prior art.

Lastly, he's only trying to patent the extraction process, not recovery.

The process of flowing a solvent through a column from a top tank to a lower tank is hardly unique...

If you go here: http://patft.uspto.gov/

In the center of the page is a link to PAIR, which gives the status of an application. It looks like he's already had to correct errors with his drawings but the patent has only been submitted for examination, it's not been examined yet.

A lot of patents go through several examinations, the examiner will object to a claim or part of a claim and send it back. An initial rejection does NOT mean it won't eventually get approved.

The way he's added the strange interpretation instructions may cause the examiner to quickly put this in the WTF is this shit pile and send it back.

Another flaw I see is not providing any prior art (previous similar patents) in the application. Usually a key part is providing similar designs and arguing why yours is unique.

I'll do a bit more research and get back to y'all.

In response to the letter from his lawyer, it's a "notice of application". Ask for clarification, I'd reply with "yes thank you but can you please clarify your intent. Here's a notice from someone else that they've published a picture of their hairy balls. I suggest you contact your attorney."

...sigh. OK, that's my 2 cents.

TL;DR:

-chill, it's bullshit.

Yeah, I just finished reading the application and my first reaction was WTF, on the Exemplary Embodiment of a Best Mode too. Looking at the rest of the application, it looks like he is trying to cover the passive recovery process, but the attorney's gobble de gook legalese EEBM seems to cover everything else and looks like it will conviently require a team of attorneys to sort out.

The issue that I see, is that both Foaf's and my systems work just fine without pumps, just not nearly as fast. We use both heat, cold, and pumps, for speed.

 

[Rickys bong]

Nope, Recovery isn't part of it.

Basically, ignore Everything except the claims to make it easy to understand.

The claims are the only thing that matters, and there's only 1 major claim (claim 1) which is an extraction process. All the other claims are a modification of claim 1...

All the description about the process is irrelevant as far as the legal protection of what the patent covers.

All the extra recovery process description is odd, it doesn't support the application. Although it would prohibit someone else patenting the recovery process down the road.

RB