We use a Tamisium and it’s really safe and fast. I’ve heard Haskell pumps are good. But the Tami is recovers fast enough for us. Plus, I can use it indoors without worrying. Pumps are cheap and fast untill they fail. I don’t want to have a front row seat when a pump fails. The Tami should probably be at the top of that list. Reply
We’ve been using our extractor for over a year and a half with excellent results; the recovery is also excellent once you get the procedure down. The recovery really helps keep costs down, especially with using the “pharmaceutical” grade butane. I seriously doubt if a more efficient or simpler extractor could be built and we heartily recommend it. Reply
Hello Rob When your article was brought to my attention by a social media manager I have worked with in the past it was pointed out that I should defend my position as the owner of Tamisium Extractors. I would not want to prejudge your intention without asking what the intention was exactly but at first glance one could conclude the suggestion is that we cannot get approved in Denver. Can you clarify your intention in more detail? Were you suggesting that we cannot get approved? I appreciate the plug by the way but would very much like it to be in a more definitive positive light because everything we do is for the consumer and end user of anything our process creates. Safety is paramount to us. I for one know WHY we are not on that list. I cannot speak for the others. We have refused to comply with the requirements for safety and health reasons. Since I created these extraction processes and pioneered the hydrocarbon extractor industry I feel I am within my rights. Denver currently requires components that are not sanitary and cannot be used with the range of solvents we use in our system. Those components would fail and or contaminate the product. In their eyes you are either Hydrocarbon extractor or a CO2 extractor and that is just not the case. They have decided that a LPG rating is the best way to go. At first glance this would be a practical move but LPG solvents are non polar and require a different type material that does not always hold up to the differing polarity of co solvents added to Butane or CO2. At the time co solvents are added the high pressure line material would not be compatible and could deteriorate depositing into the final products. To limit our system to one solvent would be restrictive in a market that is now learning that co solvents are useful and even required to create some products. The others on the list do not have the same ability a Tamisium has and may not feel the impact this restriction places on us specifically. In addition they require LPG valves. LPG valves and lines are not ever used to transport consumables and therefore no restriction is placed on the valve manufacturer to make their valves led free. A LPG valve cannot be used in plumbing to transport water because of this. A water valve would require LF for Led Free to distinguish it from a LPG valve so that a LPG valve is not used on a water line by mistake for fear of led poisoning. Why should a valve containing led actually be required for the MMJ industry. Are they not entitled to the same protection from being poisoned by led. A sanitary valve is made of materials rated for LPG and every other solvent that would be used. It has a much higher pressure rating than a LPG valve and is made of Stainless Steel throughout the whole assembly. I know this could be an oversight but once it is brought to their attention along with a dozen other officials outside of DFD you may be able to say with certainty it is being ignored. It appears that the only way this will get resolved is if the public contacts them to complain. A LPG line and valve although a lot cheaper to produce does not provide the level of protection everyone deserves. Until manufacturers will rate a sanitary valve and stainless steel braided Teflon line for LPG Denver should make an allowance in the name of public safety. Reply
David, The article clearly states that the Denver Fire Department list of approved machines “is simply a report of machines that the manufacturers have submitted a Master Engineering Report for approval of their equipment.” It doesn’t indicate whether companies not included in the approved list have been rejected…we didn’t dig that deep trying identify those that had submitted and been rejected it didn’t fit the goal of a hot list which is to simplify the RFP process for licensees looking for a solution. We did however cite additional companies, including Tamisium, whose equipment CBE thought may merit consideration, and thought we were giving you and 3 other vendors a plug so that licensees knew there were other viable options. Sorry if that created confusion and thanks for pointing that out and some of the issues you have with their approval process. Rob Meagher Reply
Thanks for clarifying you intention. I enjoyed reading your article. In Denver, if you are not on that list you are not an option in DENVER, however for the record we are approved and a viable option every place else . So again thanks for the clarification and the change to reply. Reply