Speculation about how vapour clouds form

[RastaBuddhaTao]

I agree, the more surface area the better and the slower draw gives more resonance time both in the heater and the load. I think the trick with the fine grind is that it can settle with the applied heat and then the load increases it's flow resistance. This is good in that it drops the boiling point but can also restrict flow too much and then you get load char. The slow draw helps to keep the load from compressing thereby maximizing surface area.

Yup anything you can do to preheat the system helps satisfy the heat sink gremlins that can steal enthalpy from the system. The trick to rapid vapor is a powerful vaporizer that is highly efficient wth very little parasitic heat loads so all the heat goes into the air stream and not into the device.

I like to temperature step which naturally heats up the unit on the way to cloudville. Since clouds are boarding on combustion I find my best clouds at the upper temperatures.

Vaping fast and furious at high temps is definitely a different place. With a fast draw you maximize pressure drop at the load which maximizes the reduction in boiling point. There is something delicious about applying a ton of heat fast out of the gate. I have seen the glass ball design in hydrogen fuel systems. Neat little simple but effective ultra pure high surface area pressure drop increasing element!

 

[CarolKing]

I don't think that vapor is boardering on combustion. I get big vapor clouds with my Solo and Enano well below combustion levels.

 

[Copacetic]

Regarding stem length affecting vapor; could it be that the greater volume of air in the longer stem affects the way vapor develops?

All the air between the 'bottle-neck' which restricts air passage through the vape (in most vapes this would be the air intake hole/s), and the users mouth will be subject to reduced pressure and as been discussed, elevated vapor production (carb' capping, in a sense).
Perhaps vapor production is 'easier' in a larger volume of de-pressurised air?

My thinking here is inspired by 'molar concentration' limits, and wondering if a similar vape/air ratio limit is in effect here.

Atmosphere has a maximum level of humidity which can be achieved before condensation starts to occur, and it becomes increasingly hard to humidify air as we approach that level.
Perhaps air has a similar limited 'capacity' to allow vapor production, which would increase with the volume of that air.
There may be a correlation between overall volume and vapor.

Perhaps this may be one reason why many prefer to use bongs/longer stems, as they increase the volume of air that I am trying to describe?
(I use a dry D020-D with my INH05 most of the time. also the longer glass stem seems to produce better results than the stock ones, even though I believe it tips the conduction/convection balance further towards conduction)

BTW @RastaBuddhaTao, does a smaller air intake hole, combined with a harder draw (resulting in the same air flow, but lower pressures) result in 'better' vapor with Ziontech?

Edit: perhaps an adjustable air intake might be worth exploring on test units?
You've probably already done this, but thought I'd suggest anyway.

 

[RastaBuddhaTao]

@CarolKing you are right... My thought was a higher heat higher flow rate is required in some devices to get a fresh cold load to max cloud capability where as a temperature stepping approach gets things primed and then with a stir is where I see max visible vapor. In general I get better clouds towards then end of a session as apprised to start but wax device performs differently.

I think you are on to something with the air volume. It seems to be a buffer for the negative pressure between your mouth and the load. I prefer devices that have limited flow restriction other than the load. This focuses the vacuum right at the point of vapor production. Then the pressure drop occurs at the load and not at the device inlet. But yes, with low pressure drop loads partially covering the inlet can change results.

I have been doing some work with e-liquid that has been giving me some insight into these and other variables like media and load chamber temperatures. It seems like a cold substrate (stainless mesh) produces bigger clouds than a hot substrate. I am thinking that a big temperature differential between the incoming air and the load is favorable. Not very applicable for flowers though?

 

[nosmoking]

@CarolKing I am thinking that a big temperature differential between the incoming air and the load is favorable. Not very applicable for flowers though?

Could a carb provide the cooling source your looking for? Think like the Daisy. Why do you feel this isn't applicable for flowers?

 

[RastaBuddhaTao]

A carb would cool the flow but would need to be introduced downstream of the load. I guess it is applicable for flower too just not as noticeable as the e-liquid. Definitely notice the surface area effect with the e-liquid as it doesn't have the built in fiber matrix that plant material has so surface area and wicking of the substrate are key.

 

[Copacetic]

Oh, I thought a carb would have to be upstream of the load?
Isn't the idea to reduce the air pressure immediately surrounding the load/actives, thereby encouraging lower temp' vaporisation?

 

[funkyjunky]

man i have to chim in again, all this talk of the reduction of boiling point is so insigificant. i thought i displayed this well in the post. the boiling point would maximally drop by 3 degree celsius if one was to apply full underpressure the lung is able to produce AND block the air passage. if you all continue to talk about this i will order a pressure sensor and deliever the results

also the carbcap upstream would be cool but very hot to cover with a finger...

and then i would like to strongly doubt the similarity between vaping eliquid and flowers especially when talking about surface area and reduced pressure boiling points or volumina etc

 

[Copacetic]

Well, I see this as a speculation thread, which could lead to inspiring vape manufacturers to try out weird or unusual approaches to improve vapor (sometimes this approach bears fruit)
I can't speak for others, but even though we're discussing 'carbing' I know I wouldn't want to be sucking on the old 'golfball-hose' combo just for minor improvements to vapour.
No, my suggestions here are simply speculation for theoretical /experimental reasons.
I'll gladly take your findings on board if you get a pressure sensor and conduct tests!
Very useful data I'd imagine

I think pretty much any remotely sensible suggestions or experiments would be worthwhile, so knowing how Ziontech manages e-liquids can only be another data-point that helps RBT work out the best implementation of the various units he's developing.
(And of course helpful for those who might actually want to vape e-liquid in their Zion!)

As far as carb caps go, I was suggesting that a test unit could be fitted with one as an experiment, not that they should be fitted to production vapes.
And a carb cap needn't be a finger, as evidenced by all the options available to nail enthusiasts!

'Dabbing' in a vape is of great interest to me too, so maybe we can come up with possible improvements to this practice too?( I think it's already been achieved in RBT vapes?)
Maybe a 'Healthstone' type arrangement for concentrates could work in more portable vape models?

 

[RastaBuddhaTao]

Agreed vapor pressure reduction on its own is of limited value and I believe it needs to be focused at the load with little flow restriction in the rest of the flow path. This allows for the load to be adjusted in quantity, pack and grind to vary the pressure drop as required. It's more about resistance time in the load more than vapor pressure reduction. A fine tight back will slow down the flow allowing more heat absorption by load. A course loose pack allows for faster flow rates and therefore better heat distribution axial oh. But if you are two slow you get charring. Go to fast and the ABV is more consistent but the draw is hotter.

Convection vaporizing concentrates is difficult if the boiling points are high. If a substance needs 500 F temperatures he draw will be hot. That's why nails and e-cigs typically will vaporized by conduction and bring in ambient air to cool the stream. It can be done as long as the load absorbs the majority of the heat. The issue is as the load gets depleted you can get a tailing "hot hit" which isnt pleasant.

The benefit of vaporizing e-liquid is that you can get rid of the wick burn which is caused by the extremely high coil temperatures required since the surface area of the coil is so small. You can also run 100% VG eliminating the PG. Unfortunately it's the VG that has the high boiling point. It actually works pretty well you just can't produce big clouds due to the low temperature used compared to a e-cig

 

[Shit Snacks]

So before I did say that I thought a longer vapor path could also make it tricky to get a proper hit bc of my weak lungs, or inability to adjust my draw from the short stem (talking Zion really), but maybe it is simple a power issue. Now I am using the longer stems a lot at home, especially if I'm doing quick hits at high power, and it is working wonderfully. Instant smooth cloudy vapor, so heat and speed can offset the length perhaps, though I'm not necessarily sure it really improves the vapor quality vs the short stem. Sure its a bit cooler or smoother, but I don't know if the "quality" is really improved by that, it is the quick extraction that seems to be doing it the most, the heater and the materials seems to be the biggest overall factors in this infamous concept of vapor quality. Distance, like water filtration, really just smoothes out the harshness of a hit (which can be a result of the herb as much as the vape), equal for all vapes, whereas the vapor quality is dependent on each individual design, every little tiny difference.