Discussion in 'Portable Vaporizers' started by magicflight, May 16, 2009.
Not to put down Medical Jane, they did a fantastic job.
Yes, exactly so. If you read carefully you'll note I'm correcting the OP?
Glad to have the confirmation I still know how HPLC works, it's been a long time........
Interesting line from your White Paper:
"MCR Labs found that the active cannabinoids were
consumed after 40 draws, at a rate of 0.3 mg of
THC per draw."
This seems to confirm the 'full vaping removes all the available THC' argument over the competitive 'vaping only removes about 50%' school?
Exactly, you had the right idea of how it was done. Not after every hit, but after 5, 10, 15, etc. hits. Otherwise we'd still be at the lab
What was very interesting indeed was the linearity of the results (r^2 = 0.97). If you stopped halfway, you consumed about half of the THC.
More to the point, starting with say a gram, breaking it into 10 tenths. Measuring one to see how much is there at the start (which destroys that sample). Taking number 2, hitting it 5 times then testing it to see how much less is left (again destroying it). Then to the third for 10 hits and so on (although it seems like the first few were at one hit spacings?). In the end you need 9 samples by that schedule (every 5), 8 of which are hit an average 20 times. 160 uniform hits? No small task for sure. In the end half the THC ends up in the HPLC column, the other half in experimenters........
Some are called on to sacrifice for science. A truly noble calling. Right up there with Newton not eating the apple.
I guess I don't share your interest there, I see the linear nature as a confirmation of the laws of Physics. The same energy input is giving the same Moles of goodness evaporating. Or more accurately mili (or even micro) Moles I guess, we're not greedy.
BTW, for even more fun, bring it out to this coast. Dispensaries out here don't offer 12% THC bud, unless there's a bunch of CBDs.........
Keep up the good work.
Thanks for the kind words! That's what we did, we ground up a couple grams, took a couple samples for a t=0 analysis, aliquoted the rest into 100 mg portions, and did just what you said.
We sacrificed THC in the name of science... we think of it as a sacrifice to help everyone who vapes... like a psychedelic lab rat.
I'm a bit uncomfortable with the use of "aliquot" here, to quibble a bit. When I went to school we'd call them samples since each is destroyed in the experiment. Aliquot is a part of the sample (and sometimes returned, as in Radiation counting). The key being that the sample (or at least a useful part of it) remains to back up the data. I agree "aliquot" is a fun term and all, but don't agree it's the best to use?
While it's still true, "if it's not in your notebook it never happened", from a peer review POV (an essential component of science) this invites 'give me the stuff, I wanna test it myself'. A minor point I agree, but at some levels a key one?
Still in support of the effort of course. And also suggest another unsung hero here is the port Tech that had to police up the lab afterward. You know the guy with the bulging shirt pocket and big grin on the way home?
Have you given any thought to using a fixture to standardize your hits?
We do have a part of that sample remaining for future confirmation, and we divided the same sample into roughly equal parts. I would not call these simply samples because they were measured to be roughly equal and were taken from a sample that was made to be more or less homogeneous by grinding. The definition of aliquot is:
"a portion of a larger whole, especially a sample taken for chemical analysis or other treatment."
In my school and work experience (graduate level chemistry, then pharmaceuticals) aliquot was exactly the right word to use for what we did. I did say that we aliquoted 'the rest' which was inaccurate, since we left some the initial sample for the future.
About standardization: Our aim was to test a genuine user experience and see what the numbers show. In the end, we thought data from user experience is more useful to the community than from a lab-controlled one, since the data produced in this way is more representative of what users will see.
A comparison of several user - drawn timepoints will expose the inherent variation in user draws. A fixture may also help tease out other potentially important variables. When we have time and a budget for it, we can certainly look into perfecting the experiments. This was a start and we are not claiming perfection.
Welcome to FC! I hope you stick around because we need all the help we can get with the science behind our vapour.
My criticism was in your choice of devices, since users will differ in their use of the MFLB, even from hit to hit. Could you shed some light on the reasons behind your choice? Not that I think it invalidates your work, since I value the fact that you did this study regardless of the equipment. I certainly encourage more work along these lines. We also have a thread going on the chemical reaction occurring during vapourization that I hope you'll contribute to.
Quibbling is fine, as long as it serves a purpose WRT clearer communication?
I'm basically a Materials kinda guy here myself, I guess. Or was, when they paid me..... So I see this as a set of samples of uniform (hopefully) material. Each sample got different processing and was then tested. New details say an aliquot of each sample was taken but up to that point they were specimens or samples. I'm a little concerned about things like "measured to be roughly equal and were taken from a sample that was made to be more or less homogeneous by grinding", although data fit seems to say the "roughly" was corrected for? Probably not as important in more subjective testing, but not the sort of data I'm used to seeing. Perhaps why I don't find the uniform dose/hit at all strange?
In fact, it's just that fit that makes your experiment valid. It is your 'proof' your measurement is accurate. That's how science works.
I like the "test a genuine user experience and see what the numbers show" approach but as yet don't see that. I'll no doubt catch on as the program progresses.
I'm not sure I agree about it being all that useful a guideline of "what users will see". Our collective experience here is that no such animal exists. We have a fellow at a gram a month and another at seven grams a blunt. Sippers and cloud chasers. Flavor freaks and the 'crank it up, let the WT fix it' guys. Guys that kill a trench in their LB in a few heroic hits, and others (like you it seems?) who go 10 or 20 times that. Clearly all LB users aren't getting .3 mg/hit. I suggest to be more useful there should first be a standard user defined. A way for the reader to calibrate things? Without this, it is of course impossible to reproduce your experiments......unless you guys are volunteering to a long and not too memorable road trip of course. At least not fully. Again, probably a difference of concepts. You're applied research and I'm pure I think? You're looking to answer a pre defined question, I'm looking for new understanding of the area? How cool is that?
Fun stuff. I'd probably have started out standardizing the user (that is hit volume, rate and timing) and then using some temperature controlled vape (like Solo). I think that the demonstrated uniformity of the Volcano is a very important factor in earlier testing from a lot of standpoints. The LB is awfully subject to user variation, one of it's great strengths, of course, but not what one looks for in a scientific instrument.
Again, different goals perhaps?
Thanks and continued best wishes.
Thanks for the welcome! We'll be here. Our thoughts are: enough theorizing, and lets get some data instead of making empty claims.
We chose the MFLB because it is popular and wanted to help a large number of patients, and the MFLB is very popular. If this comes with inherent variability, so be it - we prefer to test the user experience instead of a lab experience.
Thanks for pointing to the chemical reaction page. Just up our alley. Will look to contribute in the future...
Thanks for the chat!
To answer some of your concerns:
These results were consistent across 3 users of different experience levels. We used a stopwatch to control the 10-second draw time.
The 'roughly equal' samples were all within 10% mass of each other - the important part was to accurately weigh out the remains, so the actual % THC by mass was normalized.
Stay tuned, we won't sit still... Hope to bring more data in the future.
Commendable area of study! Perhaps it would be useful to enter a consistent temperature factorization into the equation, from draw-to-draw/vape-to-vape, as this study will likely be used as a reference guide for inquiring experimental minds as well as for those seeking accurate consistent dosing. The study provides a good start, but in this regard i.e., variations in temp from vape-to-vape and from draw-to-draw, results of constituents used and those remaining will vary accordingly. Of course, product quality and makeup will also vary greatly, and results accordingly.
Agreed, on all counts! We will try to set up more experiments, stay tuned...
No selfies now, Pak. This isn't that kind of forum.......
i dig it
Finally got a Box guys
A buddy of mine has had it for a long time, and neither of us really had much interest, seeing all the other vapes.. but finally he remembered to bring it to me last time he came to town.
I only got 1 battery with it, but I found an old energizer charger that works well with it... we'll see how it holds up for me (it's gonna be my keif go-to)
...and my whip fits on the glass MP perfectly
The vapor produced by MFLB may look huge but they are actually tiny whisper with not much vapor production.
Need 3~4 full chamber to feel something.
Even with such a great CS and lifetime warranty, this is not good vaporizer for me
I can blow fat clouds that look like they come from my da buddha. I can finish half a trench and put it down for later. I get some dank buds though.
I'm sorry the mflb is not for you. I'm glad the hammer suits your needs better, I picked mflb over hammer almost every time. To each their own!
That will make a difference!
"One size fits all" is the third or fourth biggest lie in modern life? Likewise, blindly taking another fellow's opinion of how good a vape is is fraught with peril. His values/judgement is sure to differ with yours to some extent. What works well for one is not much of a guarantee, what works well for most only a little better.
In the end, the consumer has to make the choice. I think it's great that the market provides so many options, with more coming on line all the time. Hopefully those choices will be informed ones?
I have used MFLB for almost 5 months now and I couldn't get any heavy vapor like you said.
But it seems like I am the only one who don't like MFLB
Or maybe I got the faulty unit... Unlucky...
Damn True! Amen!
Do me a favor, don't give up on it. Work with it, don't try and make it work for you. When I first started vaping, I skipped the LB thinking it was a gimmicky "starter" vape.
I was dead wrong. It is a great tool, but you can't use a screwdriver as a sledgehammer.. Wait, what?
Well put, it is a tool. It depends on the Craftsman wielding it for good results. More so than many others, it's a vape where owner skill, experience and technique are key. For that reason I don't share the common opinion that it's an ideal 'starter vape'. A personal call, of course.
However, you're dead wrong on the last bit, any tool can be used as a hammer......
Thanks for helping me out.
But seriously I have tried various ways already. I have spend lot of time to make this work, but I couldn't.
Yes it may true that I had lack of skill, and yes I do have high tolerance, but I really can't try anymore as I had enough.
Even though Lamborghini and Ferrari are difficult to drive, they don't take 5 months to learn how to drive innit?
If MFLB blame me (the owner) then I will just accept it.
Anyway I had better solution for MFLB at the end..
Just forget MFLB and move on to Firewood 2.1!
What a solution!
Don't worry mate! You are certainly not the only one who doesn't like the box so much...
Separate names with a comma.