Talk:Bubble hash

This article could use a cleanup. Adding wikilinks would help, making the tone a little more professional wouldn't hurt either.

yeah this really needs cleanup

So this page is mostly an ad for the xtractor cold water system and a little bit of an entry for bubble hash. It desperately needs an expert to clean it up.

(it appears that many people have tried to edit the article to include references and to correctly expand the subject beyond a single product. The company icecold.org continues to deface the article to push their agenda.

Biased article

This article needs more then a clean up. It's completely biased and pretty much an advertisement. It’s a terrible shame.

So many inaccuracies

JR Pietri, please stop the edit war to include your sales material

This is not a place for you to advertise. If your product is so superior to bags then by all means spend some money to advertise in the commercial market. This is a place for unbiased fact.

There are numerous spelling errors in your edits, bad sentance structure, and biased points of view. Please see npov and Five Pillars.

Please remember to sign your posts on talkpages. Use four tildes (~~~~) to do so. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 18:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This became an edit war while I was alseep? Wow. Viridae ^Talk 22:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

Please air any issues you have with this article here before making any changes to it. Constant edit and reverting does absoloutly no good as I am sure you are aware. Viridae ^Talk 14:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it thus far:

The image is perfectly valid - it demonstrates bubble hash perfectly well so should remain in place.
There has been frequent accusations of patent infringement. Wikipedia is not the place to deal with these, wether a patent has been infringed is beside the point.
Please stop pushing your company's method of production. 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. If they warrant an article, put it in there. Otherwise it doesn't have a place on wikipedia.
This article needs citations.

I am going to invite all involved parties to comment here. Please keep it civil. Viridae ^Talk 14:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no expertise on the subject matter. I thoroughly endorse Viridae's summary above. --Guinnog 14:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest nor do I. I would just prefer he article didn't come up so often in my watch list. 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. --Alf ^melmac 13:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS well I found this but I'm not sure of its pedigree. --Alf ^melmac 13:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems ok. Viridae ^Talk 13:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agaqin this is patent confusion Ice water method has nothing to do with Chinese water separation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JR Pietri (talk • contribs) .

Brie and Bordeaux are also generic names, whether or not they have patents and licenced processes, and they're not bad articles either. --Alf ^melmac 20:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JR Pietri (talk • contribs) .

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". 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]

The patent numbers quoted in Bubblehash, I can only find the canadian patent of 1998;

A patent for a "method and apparatus for extracting plant resins" was given to it's inventor, Reinhard C Delp, in 1998. Canadian patents record for 2321815, the EU database is a nightmare. It doesn't say anything about bubble hash, bubblehash or ice hash in the patents. --Alf ^melmac 22:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does state Ice Water Extraction method. Yes the process applys to all resin producing plants, but was invented for hashish making and was introduced at 1997 Cannabis Cup. Ice Hash is the name the Inventor put on the product made using his method at that Cup.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JR Pietri (talk • contribs) .

Is the guy at the 1997 cannabis cup the same guy who holds the patents, as that can be better phrased if so. 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. --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. 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.

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. All of the processes may use fresh 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. --Alf ^melmac 15:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like some proof that all previous methods "destroys the material". --Alf ^melmac 15:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to provide verifiable sources for any of that? --Guinnog 20:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem understanding that the system you refer to when say "we use..." uses a screen, that is why I carefully edited the line to be all inclusive of all techniques including the machine you talk about. I re-inserted the bit about the Cannabis Cup but made it more suitable for an encylopedia, it needs a cite though and without it, it'll have to go. What people are now commonly calling "ice hash" is not just the product made in those particular machines, a simple search of the coffee shop chat rooms shows that. I can't see how the all inclusive description of the process I arrived at isn't inclusive of yours. It many be lamentable that hoards of people will not hit upon that particular machine from this article, but they may, in time, with some work, go away with some decent knowledge of the whole arena. As soon as you have reliable figures as to the percentage of THC per gram or similar that would be good to show the variability across the processes. --Alf ^melmac 20:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I noticed Bubblehash and think it should be merged and redirected to Bubble hash.--Alf ^melmac 20:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would just go ahead and do that - not much pont in having two articvles on the same thing. Viridae ^Talk 23:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This recent edit states "see patent" so far the two patents have been for a generic plant oil extractor, none of it mentions hash, none of it. Not applicable. Just because the Wonder-hash-maker^TM makes use of the patented method does not mean that only that stuff is called ice hash. --Alf ^melmac 15:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect assumption as seiving made obsolete by method. All forms of traditional processing made obsolete, when you first dry, then grind up your product, then freeze it, and then run it thru 7-8 bags you don't think this is delution? Every step of the bubble bag process ruins your cannabis, destroys trichomes and you lose the terpinoids, when you get a little bubble and then 5 kinds of powdery contaminated material, well all that was bubble until you destroyed it. The correct process only gives you sticky Ice hash, no powdery contaminated material. 10-11 deluting steps by bag process is totally correct, that is why the results from both these methods can not be compared. The process collects the trichomes with as little damage as possible, when you break trichome you release terpinoids, that is not how you make great hashish. So yes ice hash is stronger, tastier, and much more in quantity than obsolete bags.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JR Pietri (talk • contribs) .

That fails to explain how "the correct process" has any exclusive entitlement to the words "ice hash" --Alf ^melmac 20:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To all involved with this article

There is an RfC open involving this article. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JR Pietri Viridae ^Talk 02:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubblehash

This article needs to go... this is blatant advertisement and should probably be speedy-deleted, but since there's been a lot of arguing about it, it should go through the AfD process (since any user can block a speedy-delete by objecting to it). Vpoko 23:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI... I have nominated the article for deletion, to be replaced with a redirect to Bubble hash. Vpoko 01:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bubblehash#.5B.5Bbubblehash.5D.5D) is a unanimous Delete & Merge (into Bubble hash). I will set up a redirect and leave it to other editors to merge sections of this article into that one (I couldn't find anything) Vpoko 21:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]