aab1 said:
magicflight said:
Really, the discriminating vaporizer purchaser needs to understand that the presence of a "digital display" is much more significant from a marketing and sales point of view than it is from a user/functional one. It is the connotation of "digital displays are more accurate/precise" that makes units sell, not the actual real functional performance or correctness -- something much harder to measure and understand. For vaporizers, as with most home appliances, "good enough" really is enough for most people -- everything else is a sales tactic.
-- Magic-Flight
I disagree with this, although the temperature on the display is not the actual herb temp, it's still accurate of the heater temp.
But most significant is that analog/mechanical thermostats such as on my old Volcano Classic only adjust the temperature once every few minutes, and can allow the temperature to vary by as much as 20 degrees before cycling on and off. For example if you set a Volcano Classic to 350, it will approximately oscillate between 340 and 360 continuously.
Digital thermostats often adjust the temperature every second or even several times per second which normally allows it to stay within 0-3 degrees of your set temperature. This completely eliminates the 20 degrees up and down roller coaster of analog devices.
So even if the temperature on the display is 50 degrees off, it's maintained within 0-3 degrees accuracy while an analog will device will vary by as much as 20 degrees.
So even if an analog device did state the actual temperature of the herb (which they don't), it will still vary widely. I'll take a temp that's 50 degrees off but maintained within 3 degrees over one that's more accurate to the actual herb temp but varies 20 degrees constantly.
Not to mention, with most if not all digitals the actual temp is also shown, with an analog you have no idea of the progress when warning up and need to wait "blindly" until the light goes off, not knowing if you're 20 degrees or 200 degrees away.
@aab1, I think your conclusions are essentially sound; however, let me add some additional clarification re the digital readout based upon posts way back here plus communication I've had directly with Arizer re the Q:
The basic challenge of course is for the manufacturer to report the temperature of the air stream moving through the herb, i.e., the actual vaporizing temp as opposed to the temp at the heating element which depending upon design can vary substantially. Units where the element is positioned closer to the material and where there is no airflow interference and where the sensor placement is well engineered will presumably have a vaporizing temp which is closer to the element temp. That said, there will still be heat loss from element to herb and so it is possible for the temperature readout to be adjusted by the manufacturer to reflect that loss so that what is reported on the LCD is as close as possible an approximation of the actual vaporizing temp.
Both of the above - placement of heat sensors and readout adjustment - are factors with the Q, and were (along with the fan IIRC) the major improvements made compared to the previous generation of the Extreme. There are now 3 sensors at the heating element, positioned differently. And, the LCD is adjusted to reflect the heat loss from element to vaporization, theoretically providing a relatively accurate vaporizing temp. In my experiments, I've found this to be generally true and therefore one can use, e.g., the vape temps charts such as here
http://www.vaporpedia.com/wiki/Vaporizing_Effects_by_Temperature and elsewhere which are not vape model specific, and find that setting the Q at those temps will approximately yield those results. The previous generation machine's readout was directly from the sensor at the element, and the delta between the temps displayed between these 2 generations is 120c, which gives an idea of just how significant the above design factors can be.
But again, in terms of actual vape temp this is at best an approximation because it will be altered somewhat by other factors. Looking at that chart, it shows most of the herb vaporizing in the 160-180c range, several more elements in the 180-190c range, and then there is a substantial jump to the 220-230c range before yet more elements reach their boiling temp. While the Q's set temp will be close to accurate in terms of the air meeting the herb, the composition of the herb and the intake of ambient air either by the user's pull and/or the fan, also will affect the air temp actually moving through the herb. That, along with just user preference, helps explain why the most often preferred temps posted by users tend to be <=190-200c or =>230c. Consistent with all this and the particular elements vaped at which temps, users report that the THC head-high is achieved mostly at <190c while couch-lock is at >230c. All consistent with the charts.
There is one other factor to consider in particular with the Q, and that is the bowl and the pack. The elbow screen is designed to create back-pressure into the bowl so as to circulate air around the material, creating the lifting Cyclone effect. It's this temp that the LCD is attempting to approximate. But if the user fills the entire bowl, or packs the material in the bowl densely, or the material is especially moist, the airflow/heat is retarded and the temp will correspondingly fall - that will not be reflected in the readout. Similarly, if one uses a (typically dense) elbow-pack not only is the material now a little further from the element but the airflow is constricted; it's for this reason that Arizer recommends raising the temp setting a bit to compensate.
Finally, let me just add that what can significantly alter how one uses the reported temp, is to use a different bowl than the Cyclone. On this forum you can find reports from users who have modified how the Cyclone is used, or have replaced the Cyclone with for example the VaporTower bowl, which I have also done. The VT bowl sits closer to the element and the material inside lays in a thinner and wider spread. I'm still running experiments, but my early results indicate that with all other factors being equal, there is a reported temp differential of ~10-20c, which is not trivial. In other words, for example where I was using an elbow-pack set at 200c, with the new bowl I get the same effect (but with even more density) with a setting of just ~180c.
(Very) long story short, the Q's settings/reported temp are probably as good an
approximation as can be achieved with its bowl design, but precision to within a few degrees centigrade is not reasonable given all the other contributing factors; I would argue for as much as +/- 10c range. Variable temp machines with closer, simpler, more direct airflow conceivably will have an accuracy advantage, but probably not a substantial one. But making a major change in the flow such as using a different bowl setup, can result in significant temp setting/readout differences.
Everything is said here:
As usual, my response was overkill.
