1. What does SSTB mean? See our glossary of acronyms.

Is there tar in vapor?

Discussion in 'Ask FC' started by Thevaped1, Jun 16, 2014.

  1. Thevaped1

    Thevaped1 Active Member

    Messages:
    28
    Sup guys let me jus say that I got a solo and love it. I have a question however. I have recently been studying the effects of vapor and smoke as well as tar buildup with smoke and vapor and this is the big question. Do vaporizers like the solo/volcano eliminate most of the tar? The reason I ask is because I have read studies that say that vaporizers produce around 10 parts tar to 1 part vapor but I also have read that due to NO combustion: there is no tar because their is no combustion. Hopefully someone that knows about this can chime in. Have a nice day and vape a bowl guys.:)
    DieHard, SSVUN~YAH, OF and 1 other person like this.
  2. ataxian

    ataxian California

    Messages:
    5,324
    Why do you even care?
    We will all die one day!
    Vaporizing taste better than combustion.

    Reason enough!
    DieHard, BluBerry, ou812? and 7 others like this.
  3. Thevaped1

    Thevaped1 Active Member

    Messages:
    28
    I was asking for information purposes only. I simply had read the info I stated above and was curious is all. Vaporization does indeed taste better than combustion and currently still vaporizer but I also too like to know as much information possible thats why I was asking so yeah. So what is your take on it? Am I right to assume that there is indeed tar but much lower than combustion? What about the people that say that there is no tar? Just trying to find the correct info ataxian.
  4. OF

    OF Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,348
    Location:
    Left Coast
    My money's on the second idea. No tar. Do you find any tar in the deposited oil in the stem? Neither do I.

    I think the proof of the idea lies in BHO and similar extracts. It all evaporates off and yet there is zero tar in evidence.

    Vape for a bit then ask your lungs which is better. Or, as an experiment only, try taking a few hits off a doob after vaping a while......I bet you have no trouble at all identifying the tar there.

    OF
    scot, ou812?, SSVUN~YAH and 2 others like this.
  5. Thevaped1

    Thevaped1 Active Member

    Messages:
    28
    I can tell you from experience that vapor feels better than smoke in the lungs which is why I currently vaporize. However I still sometimes cough up phlem from time to time but its minimal. This is from a guy that has smoked only about 30 to 40 times and vaped for much longer but I still sometimes miss the smoking high and in my research discovered the tar percentage in vapor stated above. I got the info from a credible source so I thought those "facts" were legit. I dunno. I still currently enjoy the taste and high of vapor but sometimes miss the heavy body high I get from joints. Oh well, I guess ill continue to vape daily and enjoys a smoke high on weekends. Thanks for your imput.
    ou812?, SSVUN~YAH, DDave and 2 others like this.
  6. ataxian

    ataxian California

    Messages:
    5,324
    I cough less and feel much better vaporizing. My consumption is decreased as well.

    I say very straight forward comments.

    No hard feeling!
    scot, DieHard, ou812? and 5 others like this.
  7. PoisonousHydra

    PoisonousHydra MMPR Patient

    Messages:
    146
    Location:
    Canada
    SSVUN~YAH, DDave and ataxian like this.
  8. pakalolo

    pakalolo RoboMod v3.17 (ticking) Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,881
    Location:
    Other side of your screen
    That is where he should look for information, but he put it as a question so here we are.

    In the context of smoking "tar" is a product of pyrolysis. There's a gazillion sources for that basic fact. Since vapourizing does not reach combustion temperatures (not intentionally anyway) tars are not produced. I'd be interested in a link to whatever source you have for that 10:1 tar/vapour ratio. I want to know who's responsible for that turd.
    Ox45, SSVUN~YAH, nemo and 10 others like this.
  9. hoptimum

    hoptimum Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    879

    Source?
    ataxian likes this.
  10. OF

    OF Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,348
    Location:
    Left Coast
    Amen to that one, should be quite the 'expert'. Forget the ratio, how does any tar happen? We can account for every milligram that goes in, there's literally nothing to make tar from left over in the case of concentrates, and we can still find the original total weight (less water vapor and expected THC and other good stuff) in the ABV. Not happening.

    Kinda makes you wonder what would prompt a guy to tell such a windy doesn't it? What's he trying to sell? The whole idea of vaporizing over combustion is based on this idea of avoiding combustion to avoid the tars and other nasty stuff that comes with what's left of the THC. The other idea being, of course, not to sacrifice half or more of our THC making that nasty tar in some silly fire ritual.

    OF
    ou812?, SSVUN~YAH, ataxian and 3 others like this.
  11. PoisonousHydra

    PoisonousHydra MMPR Patient

    Messages:
    146
    Location:
    Canada
    Here is what Health Canada has to say on the subject:
    Source: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/med/infoprof-eng.php#chp2212
    SSVUN~YAH, ataxian and OF like this.
  12. OF

    OF Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,348
    Location:
    Left Coast

    OK, no numbers, and from the government.......thanks, but my question stands.

    OF
    SSVUN~YAH and ataxian like this.
  13. PoisonousHydra

    PoisonousHydra MMPR Patient

    Messages:
    146
    Location:
    Canada
    One of the studies cited as a reference by the Health Canada link I provided earlier can be found, in its entirety here: http://www.cannabis-med.org/data/pdf/2001-03-04-9.pdf

    The part that may be relevant here:
    Code:
    TABLE 1. Tar and Cannabinoid Delivery–7 Smoking Devices
    Total Tars
    (mg/puff)
    
    Nonfilter Cigarette: 309.8
    Filter Cigarette: 140.5
    Waterpipe #1: 24.5
    Waterpipe #2: 9.2
    Waterpipe #3: 78.3
    Vaporizer #1: 4.76
    Vaporizer #2: 11.3
    SSVUN~YAH, ataxian, tuk and 4 others like this.
  14. JCat

    JCat Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,126
    Location:
    Ontario
    Sounds like the type of vaporizer might be important here ... maybe there is some combustion happening in a conduction type device especially dependent on temperature and length of time in contact.

    ... just some thoughts ...
    darkrom, SSVUN~YAH, ataxian and 2 others like this.
  15. OF

    OF Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,348
    Location:
    Left Coast
    Let's be a little bit careful here, shall we? The devices above are described as:

    "The first vaporizer, a commercial model consisting of a batery-powered metal hot plate inside a jar to trap the vapor, achieved a 26% improvement i the cannabinoid/tar ratio. The second model, a homemade, hybrid device, consisting of a hot air gun blowing through a beaker of water combined vaporization with water filtration/ I achieved a statistically insignificant .025% improvement."

    Neither of which, I suggest, represent modern temperature controlled vapes. I have no doubt such rigs are fully capable of going hot enough to cause combustion products. The very fact there was such a wide difference in reductions points to other factors not accounted for. This is not a scientific test of the vaporization process.......or so say I.

    OF
    ou812?, Ox45, DDave and 9 others like this.
  16. weedemon

    weedemon enthusiast

    Messages:
    2,712
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    someone linked me to an awesome canadian article and here is what was said in regards to vaporization:


    the wording chosen in there would indicate to me that there is still tar present, just in a much smaller quantity. I would also expect this to be more true when higher temperatures are used. the closer that temp to combustion, the more things that are released in the vapor.

    *source: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/med/infoprof-eng.php#chp2212
  17. tuk

    tuk Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    280
    On that note...


    Without running similar tests using modern temperature controlled vapes there is no basis to your suggestion.


    No doubts without running any tests yourself or even having access to the devices?


    No Tests = No Basis ...thats before we get to the modern temperature controlled vapes which are capable of combustion.


    Maybe, maybe not ..the differences could simply be down to diffusion.


    There is not enough information available to say this as fact....but It could be said your biased appraisal of the study is less than scientific.
    SSVUN~YAH and PoisonousHydra like this.
  18. OF

    OF Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,348
    Location:
    Left Coast
    Please don't quote me out of context, the rest of the sentence clearly identifies this as an opinion. Right? One which I stand behind for the reasons you also omitted.

    How do you explain the apparent lack of combustion products in Volcano bags? I maintain it's due to the lack of them in the vaporization process.

    OF
    SSVUN~YAH, RUDE BOY and ataxian like this.
  19. tuk

    tuk Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    280
    You were not quoted out of context, I merely broke down what you said into reply sized chunks....I believe the technical term is 'de-construct & discuss'.

    & I didn't say it wasn't your opinion, more pointing out the fact that your opinion has little or no scientific basis.

    You were asking us to be careful right?

    Have you tested volcano bags for tar?

    Can you post links to tar tests on volcano bags?
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2014
  20. PoisonousHydra

    PoisonousHydra MMPR Patient

    Messages:
    146
    Location:
    Canada
    Yes, and it was also dated 2001. If the vapourizer market hasn't improved its efficiency levels in that period of time, then I am a banana. This is why I do not simply cherry-pick quotes from a study without sourcing it: so that it can be read in its entirety if one so desires.

    If you have access to more up to date studies involving the direct measuring of tar output from smoking versus vapourizing, you are welcome to add them to the discussion. The point I am trying to make is that I am at least aiming to further the discussion by providing what information I have on the subject. I believe that I have done so in a very straightforward and upfront manner. If you have issues with the study methodology, please keep in mind that I did not conduct this research, I simply posted it for others to mull over at their convenience. If I were cherry-picking, and stating opinions as facts, I could understand the attitude. As it stands, we are providing links for someone who asked a legitimate question, to the most up to date scientific information we have available, only to have it all shot down by your opinion.

    This fairly accurately describes a homemade heat gun, which are being used by many people on here, and I see posts about on a daily basis.

    This fairly accurately depicts a worst case scenario regarding vapourization, which is far more scientifically relevant, seeing as we know it is all uphill from here. Not everyone can go out and purchase a Volcano, so it is good to know that even the shittiest, most outdated products on the market still offer a significant reduction in tar consumption when compared side-by-side with combustion.
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2014
  21. OF

    OF Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,348
    Location:
    Left Coast
    No, that's not what you said is it? You said, "There is not enough information available to say this as fact....but It could be said your biased appraisal of the study is less than scientific." You called my clearly identified opinion as a statement of fact, then threw in what some might take as a provocative personal attack? This was, and still is, an opinion (and of course based on what I believe).

    Here's the science part for those taking notes. The whole basis of modern science is the experiment to test a theory (or question a concept or observation). To work it has to be subjective and isolate the question, here 'does this reduce tar'. And it has to be repeatable by others to be accepted. We are also asking 'does it prevent', but that's another issue. The experiment gave internally inconsistent results. One vaporizer showed statistically significant improvements, the other did not. Real scientist therefore would question the design of the experiment. It's clearly showing something not accounted for. I point to the process, not so much the results. I suggest you can't really base conclusions beyond 'improvement (of an unknown magnitude) in at least some conditions'. The goal, I think, of the authors?

    No, I don't own a Volcano (although most guys know what it is). I have some considerable experience with HA bags, no tar there. That's my observation. Can you disprove it? Is there tar there? No, I have no 3rd party test data showing lack of what I say is not there, rather think it's your move to answer why I (and others of course) don't report tar buildup (rather resin very rich in THC, a concentrate not waste product).

    IMO 'drying' the terpines and cannabanoids out of herb creates no more tars than drying the water out does. And again, start with the starting weight of a MFLB load, subtract the weight of the water and good stuff that came off and you're basically at the ABV weight. What material made up this theoretical tar? In blazing this seems pretty clear, THC and other complex factions are destroyed supplying the raw materials for the tars.

    Thanks for doing so. That squares with my understanding, I'm sorry if I made it sound like it was your study, I understand it was Normal and company trying to open up the discussion as well. I agree, it's an improvement for sure (as we all know most likely), we should on that basis alone promote the idea to our friends.

    Please note, the original question from the OP here is "Do vaporizers like the solo/volcano eliminate most of the tar?". I think the answer is a resounding yes. More so, I believe properly run vapes like Solo and Volcano prevent the formation of tars to start with......and am confident I'm not alone in that opinion/experience. Better even than eliminating it after it's formed (from what we pay so dearly for) I believe.

    Thanks again.

    OF
    ataxian, BluBerry, SSVUN~YAH and 2 others like this.
  22. PoisonousHydra

    PoisonousHydra MMPR Patient

    Messages:
    146
    Location:
    Canada
    Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/175474323...ross-Sectional-Survey-on-Administration-Forms

    Not that we need Science to tell us what we can all agree on: whoever told the Original Poster that there is a 10:1 tar production ratio using a vapourizer is full of horse shit. Regardless, here it is, for the sake of posterity.
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2014
  23. OF

    OF Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,348
    Location:
    Left Coast
    Well put. Somehow the technical term for it escaped me......

    I think more evidence can be found in cleaning your bong? Tars from blazing are a mess, waxes and other stuff collected in WT water from vaping wash out. Not even close to the same IMO.

    One can run PG in his Revolution/DART (should he be fortunate enough to have access to both) and collect condensate basically indistinguishable from the PG that went in. I'm sure the others do what I do with it, put it back in again straight away for another pass. In action, the vapor has probably 'recycled' a fair bit below the 'UFO trap' before ever making it to the mouthpiece. Seems a pretty normal 'evaporation/condensation' thing to me.

    I also note some guys are in the habit of cutting up their used Volcano bags to make hot chocolate to get to the THC deposited there......you don't find many guys brewing up a cup of tar laced coco with much anticipation?

    I agree, guys come to vaping specifically to avoid tars in many cases. And seem to stay in almost all cases? We should be promoting that, not scaring good folks off with pony pucky for whatever reason.

    And then, too, there's the huge savings is costs. Either, alone, IMO is just reason for getting on board, in combination.......

    OF
    ataxian and SSVUN~YAH like this.
  24. PoisonousHydra

    PoisonousHydra MMPR Patient

    Messages:
    146
    Location:
    Canada
    @OF - I barely ever use my water piece, and I don't think that thing has ever been clean. I have tried everything from alcohol, to rock salt, to vinegar and baking soda, all with a good scrubbing, and there is still residue deposited in a ring around the waterline on the inside of the chamber. The only thing I haven't tried are the commercial products designed specifically for removing cannabis residue from dry or water pipes.

    In contrast, the wand on my Da Buddha can be made immaculate through a quick scraping with the included pick, and a bit of shaking around inside of a jar of alcohol.

    I dare anyone on here to make a batch of hot chocolate with a heavily used pipe in the bottom of it :rofl:. I haven't tried this specifically, but I have tried similar things in my questionable past, such as drinking alcohol (I want to say it was vermouth) that I had put through a pretty gunked up water piece. It did not end well.
    thisperson likes this.
  25. Thevaped1

    Thevaped1 Active Member

    Messages:
    28
    Sorry for the late response guys here is the source..
    1.http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v06n3/06359mj1.html
    2.http://vaporizer-info.com/en/medical-applications

    OK, so I know the data is a little old but assuming the vaporizer they were testing were really "vaporizing" shouldn't their be no tar at all because of no combustion. Yes, there are newer vapes out there and there will be newer ones in the future but if the earlier models were indeed vaporizers shouldn't there be no tar as well? Opinions?

    And yes I know that its not vapor/tar ratio in the studies but cannabinoid/tar ratio which my point still stands why the tar if their is no combustion?
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2014
    OF likes this.

Support FC, visit our trusted friends and sponsors