Discussion in 'Vapor Related Equipment' started by quantumaviator, Dec 4, 2012.
Ok, now that you've found the thread, ya got to read it.
How is this advantageous unless I have someone filling the tube for me and then handing it to me to empty?
I read it the first time, just missed all the important info XD its like when i go to look for the damn mayonnaise in the fridge... i can never find it and it's ALWAYS right in front.. hhaha
anyways now i have another question the OP say's "Bpa-Free polycarbonate" I wasn't aware such a plastic existed, as i thought all Polycarbonate was made with Bpa being a primary building block of the plastic.
that was true a few years ago, but is pretty common now. Find that damn mayonaise man!
not sure what you mean? The tubes volume holds the same volume of smoke that a normal humans lung capacity can hold air, therefore you get the perfect amount without wasting any from not being able to clear the whole thing.
Huh? So you believe that the volume of air that the lungs can take in is equal to the amount of air AND vapor that the lungs can process?
Damn that's a good idea! The base of the JET is pretty heavy though so it might actually be stable enough. The only problem with that design is the raw material for the base (acetal) comes in 10ft lengths and is round. We would have to get even thicker diameter rods( the stuff is already incredibly expensive) and then machine it in our mill, to get that shape. I will ask my partner and see if we could come up with an idea. In the meantime we will wait on adobewon and see what he says about his vapes and the JET!
No, obviously there is air already inside the tube. The volume of the tube with vapor AND air is the same average VOLUME of the average human lung capacity.To put it simply the tubes volume and an average humans lung volume is the same. Doesnt matter what ratio to air and vapor there is, it's a measurement of volume.
Right, but when vapor enters the lungs, there is an expansion that takes place which is not the same as taking in just air. In this respect, I don't understand why there is any advantage of matching the volume of air within the tube with ones lung capacity.
In other words, there is no way in hell that I can take in the same amount of air that contains vapor than just plain air.
Yes I understand what your saying. What I'm saying though is the volume of the tube when filled with vapor and air is the perfect size to get a full lungful without having any vapor left in the tube.
We know that. We're saying that although that is true, it's not useful for vaporists. You say it's a perfect lungful, but by the time a vaporist is ready to clear the bong, they've already been inhaling a long time (depending on the vape, atleast 30-45 seconds), and their lungs are already mostly full.
Also, the odd angle hinders the fluid dynamics you are aiming to achieve, once you add an ashcatcher. Neither the standard 45* nor 90* ashcatcher would be at an optimal angle while the Jet itself is level.
you mean like this ashcatcher? Seems pretty good to me...
and it's not falling over!
mod note: posts merged- again. Please use manual quote tags to avoid back to back posts. It's a rule here.
Here's what I don't get. My lungs are in pretty darn good shape. I run 20 miles a week. With my little HVY Mini-Beaker, I can milk it, either with my PD or my LSV within 10 seconds and if the heat is turned up a bit for a super dense vapor to air ratio, I can barely hold in the hit, yet my lungs can definitely hold a lot more air than the volume that the mini-beaker will hold.
I just don't understand why matching the typical volume of someone's lungs with a bongs capacity is beneficial in any way. There are just too many variables, like type of vape, vapor to air ratios, vape temps, inhalation speed, etc, etc, at play to make that any kind of benefit.
I couldn't see anything relevant to the angle of the bong>ashcatcher joint in the video. I'm just saying that like the perc of the JET itself, an ashcatcher wont work optimally if it's at the oddball angle of the Jet.
not sure what you mean by oddball angle?
The downstem isnt at a 90 or 45* angle.
would this work for dabs?
Smoke - Use 1/2 lung capacity to fill whole chimney, then the remaining 1/2 to inhale it all. With smoking the bowl can be killed in that 1/2 lungful. Vapor is very different. This method would yield 50% vapor-to-air ratio, so a lot of notvery dense hits - not very desireable.
With vapor you even need to inhale for a while before it starts producing, so there is even more air before it starts to fill to begin with.
The vapor stream doesn't end at all when the tube is fully milked like with smoke, so you don't clear it as soon as it milks fully, but rather inhale even more and "cycle contents" in it like 4 times, before clearing it.
Vaporbonging is more like flow-filtering. The main part of the vapor hit (which should be longest and use the most of lung capacity) is inhaling, when the piece is already milked. With 1/2 lung capacity piece, that is even less than ZERO.
That main part will make high vapor-to-air ratio, which gives great hits and only few of them before the bowl gets killed. More vapor-to-air ratio is better (unless you're into extreme conserving wanting not to exhale anything).
1/2 lung getting air and milking + 1/2 lung to clear it all
-> 50% smoke-to-air ratio, which is OK for smoke. 50% is not much OK for vapor. And you it all.
I consider 1/4 of lungs capacity required to strart vapor stream going. (This varies by vaporizer used)
Vaping with the same 1/2 lung volume piece:
1/4 lung starting air + 1/2 lung filling air + 1/4 clearing (1/2 needed)
-> Can't even clear it when it finally starts going as lungs too full. 25% vapor-to-air ratio. BAD.
Vaping with "ideal" zero-volume piece:
"->0" initial air + 1/4 additional air + 3/4 vaporstreaming + "->0" clear
-> 75% vapor-to-air ratio. Of course zero volume is not real. But it shows how less volume is better with vapes.
For "real" example (1/8 lung volume pipe):
1/8 initial air + 1/4 additional air + 1/2 vaporstreaming + 1/8 clear
-> 62.5% vapor-to-air ratio. Almost 3 times bigger hit than from a1/2 lung pipe.
I'd like to see a waterpipe with a 90 degree angle that would be straight out pointed away from ya, doesnt really make sense. The angle of our stem is just like any other waterpipe out, much like a roor, illadelphia, etc. We've had plenty of people tell us how awesome there JET is for vaping. When I tried it, it was amazing.
Damn straight! Stem accepts any 14mm GonG attachments. Put a nail in and dab away!
90° angle pointed away from you? If they wanted it pointed away, I dont think they'd had mentioned the angle they wanted, 90°. They want it straight so it can hold up a vape on its own.
Vertical is commonly referred to as 90 degrees... Parallel to the ground would be "0 degrees".
Here's a pic of a tube with a 90 degree joint for reference:
Man, Euclid would be mad at me. Starting with it up right at 0° makes a lot more sense.
This thing is super interesting to me - it almost looks like an Incredibowl Concept Bong!
Damn near indestructible....that sounds like a challenge!
This is about how I thought things would go with the lung/tube capacity thing. In reality, it is a marketing point that probably ought to be dropped because it is either misleading or just too confusing. I wasn't even getting into the difference between smoking and vaporizing.
I just don't get how having a tube that is the same capacity of my lungs is beneficial, unless it is already full of smoke/vapor. If I can only inhale the amount of gas in the tube then I will start with an empty tube and a whole lot of air getting it full. Then I don't have any more lung capacity to draw in the nice, full tube of smoke/vapor. This doesn't even address the 'average' lung capacity, as if anyone knows if they are average or not. So I would suggest dropping this point altogether. There is enough different about this pipe already; no need to confuse or possibly make people feel like you're pulling a fast one by promoting something they don't understand.
Wow,you beat that like a rental car. Impressive!
Separate names with a comma.