Alf melmac 15:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Reply I'd also like some proof that all previous methods "destroys the material". Until some verifiable data on amounts of THC present in the resultant products of each of the methods across the board claims like "up to 10X" are entirely meaningless and should be shot on sight. All of the processes may use fresh material. The summary of process I made seems ok for all of these so far, including the one described by our commericially minded friend, which uses one filter at least. Until such a time that the populous decide to call only goods made with the patented what-do-you-call-it "ice hash" and anything else similar but not using the patented what-do-you-call-it "bubble hash" I see no reason to give over the encylopedia to marketeers. Alf melmac 22:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Reply this recent edit is just plain non-factual, the patent systems looked at have 1 or more filters of a sort, the fact that some have more and some don't do not make one thing ice hash and another bubble hash. People will continue to call stuff "ice hash" no matter what: some photos of some home made "ice hash" for example - this pic and the next. Is the guy at the 1997 cannabis cup the same guy who holds the patents, as that can be better phrased if so. The preceding unsigned comment was added by JR Pietri ( talk Ice Hash is the name the Inventor put on the product made using his method at that Cup. Yes the process applys to all resin producing plants, but was invented for hashish making and was introduced at 1997 Cannabis Cup. It does state Ice Water Extraction method. Alf melmac 22:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Reply It doesn't say anything about bubble hash, bubblehash or ice hash in the patents. Canadian patents record for 2321815, the EU database is a nightmare. The patent numbers quoted in Bubblehash, I can only find the canadian patent of 1998 Ī patent for a "method and apparatus for extracting plant resins" was given to it's inventor, Reinhard C Delp, in 1998. Please take a photo of some ice hash made with the method you describe, and give it a GFDL licence, which is your choice if you took the photo, and I'll happily have it in there for comparison.- Alf melmac 22:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Reply What evidence do you have for saying it's a doctored photograph? I have temporarily disabled the picture, see my other reply for a link to a couple of pictures of home made "ice hash". The problem with this photo is that with the many lies and patent confusion the bag companies will stoip at nothing to sell their obsolete product, and even go to the lenghts to doctor photos to sell their cheap fabric at wedding dress prices. Alf melmac 20:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Reply Brie and Bordeaux are also generic names, whether or not they have patents and licenced processes, and they're not bad articles either. Viridae Talk 13:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Reply Īgaqin this is patent confusion Ice water method has nothing to do with Chinese water separation. Alf melmac 13:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Reply Seems ok. Alf melmac 13:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Reply PS well I found this but I'm not sure of its pedigree. Viridae Talk I've tried a cleanup to the article, I cannot though find a specific source for the claim that the ancient chinese used the water method for seperating the trichomes, so that bit might have to go unless anyone else finds something verifiable. I would just prefer he article didn't come up so often in my watch list. Guinnog 14:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Reply To be honest nor do I. I thoroughly endorse Viridae's summary above. Viridae Talk 14:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Reply I have no expertise on the subject matter. I am going to invite all involved parties to comment here. Otherwise it doesn't have a place on wikipedia. If they warrant an article, put it in there. All that is of interest in this article is a basic method of production, if you company has managed to shorten it - good for them. Please stop pushing your company's method of production.Wikipedia is not the place to deal with these, wether a patent has been infringed is beside the point. There has been frequent accusations of patent infringement.The image is perfectly valid - it demonstrates bubble hash perfectly well so should remain in place. Viridae Talk 14:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Reply Constant edit and reverting does absoloutly no good as I am sure you are aware. Please air any issues you have with this article here before making any changes to it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |