whatman filter paper Vs coffee filters Vs painters masks

  1. New Member
    Nutz's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  188 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    33
    Posts
    133
    Answers
    0

    whatman filter paper Vs coffee filters Vs painters masks


    I was doing some research when I came across this
    ina post talking about animals anitest (synovex) conversion

    The biggest variant in the whole process is due to the use of coffee filters. The >tighter' the paper on the coffee filter the more final product you will have, but that will slow the water washes down, too. The type of filter can make your final amount vary from 90% to 70%.
    rather than using coffee filters Im looking into lab filter paper, its just as cheap at some sources and is likely to be better standardized etc. is this overkill, or is it worth a thought?

    Available to me fairly cheap are whatman filter papers grades 1 (11um) 4(20-25um) 6 (3um) etc: what rough equivalent is the average coffee filter likely to be um wise?

    they also have 114 (25um) which has a smooth surface for easy recovery of precipitates which may be of use in the estrogen filtering stage? would 25um retain the test prop and allow the estrogen through?

    Ive also seen 3M painters dust masks / respirators recommended for filtering binders. anyone got any input on them?


  2. Board Supporter
    Snachito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    45
    Posts
    149
    Answers
    0

    Nutz, I use the cheapest dust masks, that I can find. If I use the 3M it would take forever for it to drain. One little trick is to put some methyl alcohol on the mask right before filtering the solution, this will help it go through faster.

    I had a pretty high yield of prop this last time, just shy of 9grams. With the crystal method you can get a little bit more, but I was happy with 9.

    As far as the whatman paper, not being able to drain the estrogen would be a big concern. IMHO, I think a cheap dust mask would be just fine.

  3. Registered User
    12gauge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    14
    Answers
    0

    what filter did you end up using & what worked the best?

    •   
       

  4. Advanced Member
    Rostam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    789
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Snachito
    I had a pretty high yield of prop this last time, just shy of 9grams. With the crystal method you can get a little bit more, but I was happy with 9.
    Now that this old thread is up again could you tell us out of how many grams you got your 9grs?

  5. Senior Member
    Skye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,946
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Nutz
    I was doing some research when I came across this
    ina post talking about animals anitest (synovex) conversion



    rather than using coffee filters Im looking into lab filter paper, its just as cheap at some sources and is likely to be better standardized etc. is this overkill, or is it worth a thought?

    Available to me fairly cheap are whatman filter papers grades 1 (11um) 4(20-25um) 6 (3um) etc: what rough equivalent is the average coffee filter likely to be um wise?

    they also have 114 (25um) which has a smooth surface for easy recovery of precipitates which may be of use in the estrogen filtering stage? would 25um retain the test prop and allow the estrogen through?

    Ive also seen 3M painters dust masks / respirators recommended for filtering binders. anyone got any input on them?
    Well that argument really only applies if you follow the instructions and make a very fine test prop powder. the easiest way around this is the "Wardog method". Freeze your distilled water first and then allow it melt into your solution. This will make the crystals grow large and this easier to filter. the argument then becomes mute.

    Having said that the lab filters are far better and should be used if possible. Dust mask (be careful what kind) would be second best and a coffee filter if its what’s available at the time.

    Just in case this wasn't clear (in the reading of your post you refer to it as estrogen filter stage?) the filtering has NOTHING to do with the removal of the estrogen. such molecules are magnitudes smaller then any filter pore. And test and estrogen are close to the same size anyway so filtering would do nothing to remove the estrogen. Estrogen is removed chemically by means of solvation. (using the solublizer or lye, it doesn't matter as far as what type of mechanism is used) The only part filtering plays here is after the test prop has been precipitated out of the solution with water. There is a way to physically separate them but method you could do at home is not effective.

  6. Registered User
    12gauge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    14
    Answers
    0

    skye,

    the reason i brought up this old post is because i did the ice drip method & i did not get cyrstal. I ended up with a mushy ball of floating powder & it instantly clogs the coffee filter.

    i used ice cubes so maybe it dripped to fast intead of using a solid block.

    I tried a painters cap today & a lot got through but at least it didnt instantly clog.

    i searched & searched didnt see anybody else having filter problems & this was the only post i could find. It makes it nearly impossible to flush the powder with water if you cant filter it in a timely manner, so i just stuck the powder in a bowl with water & stirred it & let it sit for the day & then filtered it in the painters cap, but a lot of the smaller particles got through.

    or maybe my coffee filter is just too good. i dont drink coffee & its all i had.

    thanks






    Quote Originally Posted by Skye
    Well that argument really only applies if you follow the instructions and make a very fine test prop powder. the easiest way around this is the "Wardog method". Freeze your distilled water first and then allow it melt into your solution. This will make the crystals grow large and this easier to filter. the argument then becomes mute.

    Having said that the lab filters are far better and should be used if possible. Dust mask (be careful what kind) would be second best and a coffee filter if its what’s available at the time.

    Just in case this wasn't clear (in the reading of your post you refer to it as estrogen filter stage?) the filtering has NOTHING to do with the removal of the estrogen. such molecules are magnitudes smaller then any filter pore. And test and estrogen are close to the same size anyway so filtering would do nothing to remove the estrogen. Estrogen is removed chemically by means of solvation. (using the solublizer or lye, it doesn't matter as far as what type of mechanism is used) The only part filtering plays here is after the test prop has been precipitated out of the solution with water. There is a way to physically separate them but method you could do at home is not effective.

  7. Senior Member
    Skye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,946
    Answers
    0

    don't know. I always use a block of ice and more MA then needed (I haven't done this in quite a while). you can even grow the stuff on a string if you have a mind to (the fina looked pretty cool doing that.

  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-05-2006, 02:06 AM
  2. Omega Thunder vs Man Clout vs Green bulge
    By ZoMbSta in forum Supplements
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-12-2005, 11:22 PM
  3. mdien vs winstrol; mohn vs anavar
    By s.norman in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-08-2004, 11:28 AM

Posting Permissions

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

Log in

Log in