Vaping decarbed flower

[Simplicio]

Why don't people vape decarbed flower?
I've seen very few posts on this, and those posts were not very helpful.
Most people's first reaction is "why would you? The vape does that for you."
And then some ridicule.

What if it were possible to decarb flower perfectly, then quickly get THC vapor into our lungs at the lowest useful temperature?
Lower temperature would be easier on the lungs.
Also, decarb doesn't degrade herb or thc appreciably.

Has anyone actually tried this?
Have you tried a variety of temps?

 

[BII]

I presume people don't vape decarbed flowers (although theoretically, decarbed could be more potent), because for them the heating ruins or changes the look and feel, maybe the aroma/terpenes too.

For some vapers, the changes from the decarbing (heating), such as if allowed to get super-dry, are preferred for vaping (with any water vapor undesired). I consumed only decarbed buds for a while, and see no difference in activity or potency (with none expected). But my main interest in decarbing was to get the buds maximally dry, then seal them up for use through the week, and for easily making fine powders as needed for vaping.

 

[keissue]

I also asked that question myself cause I prefer vaping not smoking

 

[Egzoset]

Salutations Simplicio,

Lower temperature would be easier on the lungs.

It seems there's always been some church wars over conditioning, which actually prompted me to have experiments of my own so i could sort it out, for example:

​

YouTube: HerbalAire Experiments (Fog Mixing Site) {2012-Nov-24}​

This setup allowed multiple configurations where the effects of cooling and moisturization could be evaluated in combination or separately. My conlusion was that an average human physiology required Inlet Water on top or filtration and cooling, the water part being apparently similar to what's done in such cooking apparatus as illustrated below:

Or better yet, just like from a VaporGenie pipe where extra-hot exhaust gases from clean-burning butane generate Inlet Water (H2O) + Carbonic Gas (CO2).

When compared to the "Release/Transport Agent" of Hot Dry Air Ovenizers (as the Volcano/Arizer or their emulator suite...) this Inlet Water captured from the corona of a blue flame eventually raises specific heat capacity of the convective stream; so, considering that dry air defines unity while steam doubles that, it's safe to expect a boost ranging between 1 and 2 instead of only 1.0 as with a vast majority of popular products - though i figured it's likely to be a slim raise, since my "Micro-Bursting" ritual only involves very little - yet that's still an advantage and most specially in Pulse Heating i believe. Overall the VG pipe offers Inlet Water which translates as portable Self-Moisturization also complemented by convenient efficiency-improving "Potentialization" of its Release/Transport Agent...

In addition please lets keep another basic fact in mind: temperature is nothing more than a delayed echo reflecting some previous energy transformation, that's why related discussions should be limited to slow/steady consumptions methods + associated ritual. A direct consequence of this being that "activation" (or "decarb") is already performed in those antique scenarios anyway.

What if it were possible...

In retrospective i promote a segmentation of the whole process, from release/transport to activation/conditioning then inhalation, with secondary heating as with the Sublimator of Enrico Bouchard (e.g. to trim down the size of our precious microscopic "vapour" droplets, in order to ease transfer into the bloodstream). For that i'd recommend to switch to Pulse Heating powered by 2-steps electromagnetic Induction:

Phase #1 occurs simultaneously in both Hybrid Cores during the Pre-Heat IH-driven phase, then Release/Transport followed by Activation take place once things are set in motion by airflow (#2).

What was learned using thermostatic tools won't help much here simply because my novel method is based on transitional properties, in particular the notion that heat can never displace instantly in matter. That's a fundamental restriction we can be exploit in a beneficial manner, mainly to avoid excessive denaturation by heat (or "baking"), which in turn will maximize aroma/taste appreciation besides "conservation".

Etc., etc.

Good day, have fun!!

 

[BII]

Theoretically (emphasis on this), cooling and adding water vapor to cannabis vaporizer output steams would result in more condensation and formation of larger but still air-suspended particles, with an increasing portion becoming larger than the optimal size needed to reach deep into the lungs and actually be rapidly absorbed as vapor.

I got lost in the above post starting at the paragraph "When compared to..." What parameter(s) are you referring to here, including "it's safe to expect a boost ranging between 1 and 2..." (boost in what)? Unless someone is using needed equipment, such as real-time particle size analyzers/counters, suitable vapor temperature sensors, and/or related pharmacokinetic modeling of lung vapor uptake, I don't see what such experiments can actually show.

Otherwise, adding water vapor to vaporizer output may improve inhalabilty, but clearly it theoretically should degrade delivery to and adsorption deep in the lungs, likely promoting condensation (larger vapor droplets), besides also simply diluting cannabis vapor with water vapor.

[Maybe, someone should post this question on fuckcombustion.com, the main vaporizer online group as far as I'm aware of, and report results back to AFN].

 

[Egzoset]

Salutations BII,

...someone should post this question on f**n.com...

Lets disagree, simply because such discussions have been blocked for no valid purpose(s) since the early days, thanks to FC's church wars exactly:

Meanwhile there's been plenty of IH enthousiasts disproving the value of such "expertise", go figure!... Not to mention over the years every single challenge to DUPLICATE & PEER REVIEW always resulted with similar lousy attitudes as still observed here today, seasoned with fake confusion meant to reject a most basic concept as Inlet Water - which is well noted.

I got lost in the above... ... I don't see what such experiments can actually show.

M'yeah, i yet have to receive 1st-hand criticism from people who'd actually dare spend cash even on my current VG-based "Prototyping Platform" just to get a fair idea what's really at stake - in addition to demonstrating how foolish FC fanboyism can get... Anyway Inlet Water captured from a torch's corona ain't promoting no condensation at all: it's carrying energy instead, quite on the contrary!! Yet you obviously neglect to consider that my FogBong! experiments were initiated long BEFORE i even started to work with clean-burning butane from a VaporGenie... Briefly put, sorry pal but i require zero NASA equipment simply to state affirmatively that the specific heat capacity of dry air is unity (1), that it is 2 for steam and that a mix of hot dry air + a tiny fraction of extra-hot H2O collected directly from a butane flame corona will necessarily range between 1 and 2 - hence clear evidence of a "Potentializing" boost later materializing as water droplets (AWAY FROM A BOWL'S OUTPUT)!

So it's misleading to keep refering to the wrong 2012 scenario around "adding water vapor to cannabis vaporizer output" as that's just not what my customized VG pipe is all about, which boils down to taming down all forms of filification. FC-based or otherwise.

What i'm saying is that Hot Dry Air alone (e.g. with a specific heat capacity of 1...) makes an inferior "Release/Transport Agent" (read "obsolete"!), that slow/steady FC-glorified ovenizers are synonymous of black box "baking" or "denaturation" while i much prefer "The Shortest Path of Lesser Transformation".

In conclusion please don't be so naïve/gullible to allow yourself getting mislead by the "science" of FC's own self-serving influencers, especially after a mind-stricking sample as provided right above... Relatively to the OP's question, i'd expect the very same deceptive type of strategy as what you used to discredit openly-shared and seriously involved work, e.g. with absolutely no strings attached.

Good day, have fun!!

 

[BII]

Salutations BII,



Lets disagree, simply because such discussions have been blocked for no valid purpose(s) since the early days, thanks to FC's church wars exactly:

Meanwhile there's been plenty of IH enthousiasts disproving the value of such "expertise", go figure!... Not to mention over the years every single challenge to DUPLICATE & PEER REVIEW always resulted with similar lousy attitudes as still observed here today, seasoned with fake confusion meant to reject a most basic concept as Inlet Water - which is well noted.



M'yeah, i yet have to receive 1st-hand criticism from people who'd actually dare spend cash even on my current VG-based "Prototyping Platform" just to get a fair idea what's really at stake - in addition to demonstrating how foolish FC fanboyism can get... Anyway Inlet Water captured from a torch's corona ain't promoting no condensation at all: it's carrying energy instead, quite on the contrary!! Yet you obviously neglect to consider that my FogBong! experiments were initiated long BEFORE i even started to work with clean-burning butane from a VaporGenie... Briefly put, sorry pal but i require zero NASA equipment simply to state affirmatively that the specific heat capacity of dry air is unity (1), that it is 2 for steam and that a mix of hot dry air + a tiny fraction of extra-hot H2O collected directly from a butane flame corona will necessarily range between 1 and 2 - hence clear evidence of a "Potentializing" boost later materializing as water droplets (AWAY FROM A BOWL'S OUTPUT)!

So it's misleading to keep refering to the wrong 2012 scenario around "adding water vapor to cannabis vaporizer output" as that's just not what my customized VG pipe is all about, which boils down to taming down all forms of filification. FC-based or otherwise.

What i'm saying is that Hot Dry Air alone (e.g. with a specific heat capacity of 1...) makes an inferior "Release/Transport Agent" (read "obsolete"!), that slow/steady FC-glorified ovenizers are synonymous of black box "baking" or "denaturation" while i much prefer "The Shortest Path of Lesser Transformation".

In conclusion please don't be so naïve/gullible to allow yourself getting mislead by the "science" of FC's own self-serving influencers, especially after a mind-stricking sample as provided right above... Relatively to the OP's question, i'd expect the very same deceptive type of strategy as what you used to discredit openly-shared and seriously involved work, e.g. with absolutely no strings attached.

Good day, have fun!!

Keep in mind, I started my comments with "Theoretically (emphasis on this)...", while you are mostly referring to specific models and high-tech heating methods; and I haven't followed FC.com for about a decade. Do we really disagree on anything?

What happened with FC or are the problems? I recall some cults and related trolling (such as Purple Days), but then this is an online group seeking to get high (better tools for doing this), not growers having to put in work; make a load of decisions (whether we realize it or not); and seeking to learn.

Personally, in terms of vaporizers, I favor the original Burruss (dry herb vaporizer pioneer) approach of dry herb "flash evaporation." This involves a heater, often a pure convection metal heat sink/exchanger, with minimal distance between the heater and herb, and the user directly sucking hot air through the heater, the dry powdered herb and inhaling the resulting vapor. Most 'log' vaporizers are simple examples of this.

 

[Egzoset]

Hi again BII,

...I started my comments with "Theoretically (emphasis on this)...", while you are mostly referring to specific models and high-tech heating methods; and I haven't followed FC.com for about a decade. Do we really disagree on anything?

Well, in that case i must emphasize that my "Plan-B" (butane-based) part of the Customized VG Pipe experiments was done being fine-tuned some long while ago, way beyond theory. There's little i can add that i didn't write previously, including about FC's refractory "socialisation", so yes i do think it's a bad idea to mention this particular group as a reference, especially on another board already equiped with its own local resources, less thousand pages of mutual appreciation...

...seeking to learn.

That's where blockage is easily observable on FC (with strings attached...), e.g. despite solutions ready to get DUPLICATED & PEER REVIEWED for many years. Lets appreciate the simple fact that i kept repeating myself relatively to an industrial product combining both the Curie effect and Induction Heat since the '90s and yet this got massively rejected just because it came from Egzoset.

So now it's time we remember what the initial question was, as far as i'm concerned.

Why don't people vape decarbed flower?

Which is no silly question and i think i provided elements of response to that as well. Actually i find the question could lead to a relevant/stimulating conclusion in terms of Energy Budget, which is absolutely fundamental in portable applications...

Good day, have fun!!

 

[Medicinal Grower]

Why don't people vape decarbed flower?
I've seen very few posts on this, and those posts were not very helpful.
Most people's first reaction is "why would you? The vape does that for you."
And then some ridicule.

What if it were possible to decarb flower perfectly, then quickly get THC vapor into our lungs at the lowest useful temperature?
Lower temperature would be easier on the lungs.
Also, decarb doesn't degrade herb or thc appreciably.

Has anyone actually tried this?
Have you tried a variety of temps?

Because the terpenes and cannabanoids only evaporate at those higher temperatures...

 

[Egzoset]

Salutations Medicinal Grower,

...terpenes and cannabanoids only evaporate at those higher temperatures...

Which used to be a major deception in practically all interactions i got since 2010, because this better applies to THERMOSTATIC scenarios based on Hot Dry Air Ovenizers where all phases overlap: e.g. "Release", "Activation" and "Transport" are expected to occur all at once even if one attempts to avoid "Baking" (heat denaturation).

Ideally in Pulse Heating there's just no time for thermalization to take place, instead of deep (slow, long and steady...) vegetal tissue penetration an intense/brief energy release manages to only target contact-surfaces before the Heat Charge goes depleted, effectively protecting noble molecules from excess heat exposure inside a bowl between 2 tokes. Additionally it appears part of the "Activation" happens past the bowl (once "Release" & "Transport" kicked in...), e.g. where residual energy is put to more productive use than just create a skin-burn risk - not to mention material selection is greatly simplified as a bonus and hence implementation cost should reflect that important aspect as well. In other words a thermostatic solution can be the wrong answer to an erroneous challenge and that's exactly why most of the popular devices advertised on FC (or VA, VL and similar...) still prove so unsatisfactory despite their inflated price-tags + dependency on "bio" Dry Herbs with pristine vegetal substrate free of contaminant infusions. So the consumer's typical desire for thermostatic portability only complicates an already difficult situation.

Good day, have fun!!