Are some vaporizers more efficient than others...

[MoeOnTheMoon]

Are some vaporizers more efficient than others... and if they are, does vaping with a more efficient vaporizer get you higher per amount of herb?

As an example: if you have one gram of herb and you vaporize it in a Volcano, and someone else takes the same amount of herb and vaporizes it in a PD or MZ or ? ... will the person medicating with the Volcano or whatever, get as high over the same amount of time, let's say 16 hours or so, than the person using the PD or MZ?

The issue was raised by pollykok in another thread, and I thought it might lead to some interesting discussion, so here we go.

Let's play nice.

Pollykok wrote:
"I haven't driven a motor-scooter, but I can tell you that if you tune two motor-scooters to the same specifications (exhaust, engine, weight, etc..) they will get basically the same gas-mileage, confounding variables aside."

Pollykok, what about if those 2 motor scooters have a different body? If they each have a different body design, wouldn't one be more efficient than the other? Wouldn't one with an aerodynamic design get there more quickly than one with a boxy design and larger body?

So, since the PD and MZ have a different design, for example, I would expect one to get you there quicker than the other. Will both get there? Yes. But one will probably get you there a little quicker than the other. It might not be noticeably different, it might be irrelevant, but still there is very likely some difference. Now if you take a PD or MZ against a Silver Surfer or DaBuddha, then one might get you much higher much faster. But that's not "efficiency", that's performance.

I think some people like to do lower doses with less frequency and others like to do higher doses with more frequency. In the end, the medication is not the same for everyone, nor is the method of delivery. Some like shots in the ass, some like shots in arm. Whatever that means. My analogies have run amok... [And I wish I was running amok with them!] Some people maybe like to have one vape for daily use, and something else for higher performance on occasion.

Or am I just completely high?

 

[quomist]

In regards to efficiency, I cannot really compare as I only have one vape, an Iolite. From my experience though, I don't find this vape very efficient. It takes me awhile to smoke a bowl in the first place, and I still smoke roughly the same amount that I would in a one pape or a L joint.

I have some more vaporizers on the way after reading results in the forums. I hope I have something different to say about them than the Iolite.

 

[bluntfaced]

You are completely high, yes. This is ridiculous and the last thing this place needs is another PD vs. MZ thread. Come on dude.....

The answer to your question is yes though, and it will become quite apparent when you actually get your hands on some of these vapes you're so knowledgeable about.

 

[lwien]

All I can do is tell you from my personal experience, which Pollykok has yet to do.

When I went from smoking a glass pipe to using a VaporGenie, I was able to cut my consumption in half and get just as high.

When I went from the Genie to the PD, I was able to cut my consumption in half again while getting just as high.

When I went from my PD to my Iolite, my consumption raised to even higher than it was with my VaporGenie.

So, for me, the PD was tremendously more efficient than either the VaporGenie or the Iolite.

That's what I experienced. So what I would suggest is for people to post their experiences here rather than posting up their assumptions.

 

[bluntfaced]

Yep, it's all about how you use it and how much you need.

 

[lwien]

Yep, it's all about how you use it and how much you need.

But if I need more, or needed less, the differences wouldn't change what I stated above. And as far as how I used it, my ABV out of all 3 vapes are just about the same and it wasn't just a one time comparison, but many.

I had to go thru almost 3 times as much weed thru the Iolite to get to the same high that 3 times less would get me thru the PD.

So to me, there's no question that, at least compared to a VG or an Iolite, the PD will blow them out of the water when it comes to using less bud to get to the same high.

 

[bluntfaced]

I dunno, I've never used a PD but I have used a vapolution. If I was cool off 1 vapolution bowl then it would be perfect but lets say I want three. I can easily load an elbow pack in my extreme and it is just as efficient. I could also load an entire volcano bowl and get fucking ripped, just as efficient IMO. See what I'm getting at? I feel like it's mostly perceived efficiency.

I've never used a Vapor genie or an iolite I'm sure you're right about them though.

Basically there are two kinds of efficiency that get talked about here, the perceived efficiency and the actual ability of the vape to get as much possible actives out of your bud.

 

[MoeOnTheMoon]

You are completely high, yes. This is ridiculous and the last thing this place needs is another PD vs. MZ thread. Come on dude.....

The answer to your question is yes though, and it will become quite apparent when you actually get your hands on some of these vapes you're so knowledgeable about.

I don't recall asking your opinion about the thread itself, but go ahead and spout off. I suggest if you don't like the thread, don't participate in it. That's easy enough, right?

And I NEVER said anything like "I am knowledgeable about vapes"! Maybe you're confusing me with the guy who made the scooter analogy.

 

[niall]

Are some vaporizers more efficient than others...

Undoubtedly.

The variables have got to be surface area exposed, decarboxylation, airflow rate, depth of material (causing temp gradients and affecting decarboxylation and boil off), rate of extraction with respect to different terpenoids flavinoids and cannabinoids - they each affect the high so getting it all in one hit together is going to give a different effect to getting the low temp volatiles like the terpenoids and flavinoids first then THC then CBD etc.

Use what works for you, whether your goal is making it last longer or a type or length of high, or whatever. But of course there will be differences in efficiency, seem to be a good half dozen or more basic designs out there now all very different, all with pros and cons.

 

[stickstones]

pollykok needs to detail his vapor experience. I don't think he has any idea what he is talking about. You've got to try them to to know.

 

[choding]

I'll just paste the post I made in another thread the other day. I think the PD is as efficient as they come because of the physical design of the vape and the way most of us tend to take hits.

The PD is more efficient than any regular sized whip unit because there's very little condensation loss. As vapor travels through 2-3' feet of glass and tubing, with cooler surfaces, you're going to get condensation. Even the Vapolution, using just the all glass, 8" AIW bowl and no tubing, collects much more condensation in the bowl than the shorter, poypropylene and steel PD vapor tube.

The other, and probably more important factor for efficiency, is the tendency to take the bigger hits that larger vapes can supply. I've been using both the SSV and PD for some time now-the Surfer for a year, and the PD since last May. Although I can and do sometimes take bigger PD hits than I can efficiently process, I consistently waste vapor with the SSV, because I enjoy the big hits. Certainly you can load less and/or take small hits from any vape, but if you like beer it's kinda hard to make yourself take tiny sips as if it were wine or straight liquor.

Now if anyone wants to argue that the THC via vapor is absorbed as quickly as it is with smoke, feel free. But my opinion is based on the info from the University of Leiden that 30-40% of the THC in vapor is lost with a quick exhale. It makes sense to me and that's the approach I use with vaporizing. So on the basis of very low condensation loss, and smaller than average hits due to the small bowl, I can't think of another popular vape that can compete with the PD for efficiency. Now if you want to consider higher vaping temps in the efficiency dept., then any vape with a temp control has the edge.

I think you can look at efficiency in different ways. There's the human factor, as far as taking bigger hits than you can efficiently process. Getting the most vapor per draw is one way. Getting all the herb in the bowl vaped is another. Condensation loss is another, and that one mostly depends on the vape design, although you can shorten tubing (if that's a part of the particular model), keep glass and tubing cleaner, etc.

From my experience with the V-Tower, the Cyclone bowl design works against efficiency as far as getting all the herb exposed to the vapor path. I'd hit it and the herb would move around in the bowl. How much it moved depended on how much was loaded, how finely ground, how dry, and how hard I hit it. At worst, the particles would fly around and maybe avoid the hottest part of the vapor path-at least part of the time they were in the outer, cooler part of the bowl. If I raised the temp to compensate, it didn't really help, since higher temps roast the herb faster, thus inefficiency occurs. The answer is to just keep hitting it until all the herb particles are fully exposed to the hot vapor path. You have to do the same with the SSV. Although the herb stays put in that bowl, the vapor path is narrow, requiring stirring of the bowl to get it all exposed. So although both vapes are inefficient to some extent as far as requiring multiple hits, what if you either narrowed the bowl or widened the vapor path so that all the herb got vaporized in one or two hits? If there was a large amount in the bowl, you'd get a ton of vapor per hit, then inefficiency would kick in on the human side-you'd get more vapor than you could hold and process. You'd have to load less in the bowl or take smaller hits.

I've thought about some kind of bowl add-on (or add-in) for the Surfer bowl, to keep more of the herb in the vapor path. Seems like narrowing the bowl is the best answer for fewer hits per bowl on any vape, but if you don't compensate by loading less and/or taking smaller hits, it can be counter productive. That's where the PD shines-narrow vapor path but it covers the whole bowl, and a small amount for easier processing (the human factor).

If I were going to change the Extreme bowl setup for better efficiency as far as number of hits required, I'd narrow the bowl to keep more of the herb in the hot air. I'd do the same with the SSV or any other full size whip vape. You'd still have to adjust for smaller load and/or smaller hit, but that would be my choice. And some method of keeping the herb from flying up to the elbow connector would be nice too.

 

[pollykok]

Are some vaporizers more efficient than others...

Undoubtedly.

The variables have got to be surface area exposed, decarboxylation, airflow rate, depth of material (causing temp gradients and affecting decarboxylation and boil off), rate of extraction with respect to different terpenoids flavinoids and cannabinoids - they each affect the high so getting it all in one hit together is going to give a different effect to getting the low temp volatiles like the terpenoids and flavinoids first then THC then CBD etc.

Use what works for you, whether your goal is making it last longer or a type or length of high, or whatever. But of course there will be differences in efficiency, seem to be a good half dozen or more basic designs out there now all very different, all with pros and cons.

Dercaboxylation, and the rate of extraction for the various chemicals in marijuana, are all functions of heat. Vaporizers don't have special heat that extracts flavonoids only or terpenoids only or faster than they would if heated by another source. Needless to say if you can control the temperature on your vaporizer you can set it to a more efficient one.


There are inherent out-of-the-box differences in efficiencies, and standard use differences in efficiencies.

But as long as you can control the variables one vape is going to be as efficient (with a possible negligible difference) as the other vape.

 

[pollykok]

I'll just paste the post I made in another thread the other day. I think the PD is as efficient as they come because of the physical design of the vape and the way most of us tend to take hits.

The PD is more efficient than any regular sized whip unit because there's very little condensation loss. As vapor travels through 2-3' feet of glass and tubing, with cooler surfaces, you're going to get condensation. Even the Vapolution, using just the all glass, 8" AIW bowl and no tubing, collects much more condensation in the bowl than the shorter, poypropylene and steel PD vapor tube.

The other, and probably more important factor for efficiency, is the tendency to take the bigger hits that larger vapes can supply. I've been using both the SSV and PD for some time now-the Surfer for a year, and the PD since last May. Although I can and do sometimes take bigger PD hits than I can efficiently process, I consistently waste vapor with the SSV, because I enjoy the big hits. Certainly you can load less and/or take small hits from any vape, but if you like beer it's kinda hard to make yourself take tiny sips as if it were wine or straight liquor.

Now if anyone wants to argue that the THC via vapor is absorbed as quickly as it is with smoke, feel free. But my opinion is based on the info from the University of Leiden that 30-40% of the THC in vapor is lost with a quick exhale. It makes sense to me and that's the approach I use with vaporizing. So on the basis of very low condensation loss, and smaller than average hits due to the small bowl, I can't think of another popular vape that can compete with the PD for efficiency. Now if you want to consider higher vaping temps in the efficiency dept., then any vape with a temp control has the edge.

I think you can look at efficiency in different ways. There's the human factor, as far as taking bigger hits than you can efficiently process. Getting the most vapor per draw is one way. Getting all the herb in the bowl vaped is another. Condensation loss is another, and that one mostly depends on the vape design, although you can shorten tubing (if that's a part of the particular model), keep glass and tubing cleaner, etc.

From my experience with the V-Tower, the Cyclone bowl design works against efficiency as far as getting all the herb exposed to the vapor path. I'd hit it and the herb would move around in the bowl. How much it moved depended on how much was loaded, how finely ground, how dry, and how hard I hit it. At worst, the particles would fly around and maybe avoid the hottest part of the vapor path-at least part of the time they were in the outer, cooler part of the bowl. If I raised the temp to compensate, it didn't really help, since higher temps roast the herb faster, thus inefficiency occurs. The answer is to just keep hitting it until all the herb particles are fully exposed to the hot vapor path. You have to do the same with the SSV. Although the herb stays put in that bowl, the vapor path is narrow, requiring stirring of the bowl to get it all exposed. So although both vapes are inefficient to some extent as far as requiring multiple hits, what if you either narrowed the bowl or widened the vapor path so that all the herb got vaporized in one or two hits? If there was a large amount in the bowl, you'd get a ton of vapor per hit, then inefficiency would kick in on the human side-you'd get more vapor than you could hold and process. You'd have to load less in the bowl or take smaller hits.

I've thought about some kind of bowl add-on (or add-in) for the Surfer bowl, to keep more of the herb in the vapor path. Seems like narrowing the bowl is the best answer for fewer hits per bowl on any vape, but if you don't compensate by loading less and/or taking smaller hits, it can be counter productive. That's where the PD shines-narrow vapor path but it covers the whole bowl, and a small amount for easier processing (the human factor).

If I were going to change the Extreme bowl setup for better efficiency as far as number of hits required, I'd narrow the bowl to keep more of the herb in the hot air. I'd do the same with the SSV or any other full size whip vape. You'd still have to adjust for smaller load and/or smaller hit, but that would be my choice. And some method of keeping the herb from flying up to the elbow connector would be nice too.

He says:

So on the basis of very low condensation loss, and smaller than average hits due to the small bowl, I can't think of another popular vape that can compete with the PD for efficiency. Now if you want to consider higher vaping temps in the efficiency dept., then any vape with a temp control has the edge.



So basically his basic variables are:
Condensation loss
Smaller than average hits


Both which can be controlled.

1. Use a shorter whip.
2. Take smaller hits.

Okay.

 

[tuttle]

Personally, I think bowl size is critical. If you have ever tried putting a tiny little pinch in something like the Silver Surfer, you know how frustrating it can be to get a good vape on it. Without much in the bowl, what is in there will flutter around the airstream, not really staying in the heated air column for extended periods of time, which means many, many, many very thin hits.

I think your line of reasoning that heat is heat, all vaporizers are the same is a bit off the mark. You can say the same thing about a gasoline internal combustion engine. They all burn gas, gas for the most part has a pretty consistent energy density, so two engines which burn fuel at the same rate must deliver the same energy output, but we all know that not to be true. The design of the engine has a great impact on how much power it delivers at specific RPM. Vaporizers I feel are a bit the same. Bowl size and design, thermal mass of the system, air flow resistance, vapor cooling, all of these things conspire in different ways to determine how much of each psychoactive compound is liberated, what ratio, what order, and how much of each makes it to the user.

 

[Rick]

Maybe someone much smarter can elaborate on "efficiencies of scale".

A Sentra will get you from A to B more "efficiently" than a Cummins turbo diesel. But the big guy will get a cord of wood from A to B more efficiently.
They both convert energy to transportation.
Different tokes for different folks.

 

[pollykok]

Personally, I think bowl size is critical. If you have ever tried putting a tiny little pinch in something like the Silver Surfer, you know how frustrating it can be to get a good vape on it. Without much in the bowl, what is in there will flutter around the airstream, not really staying in the heated air column for extended periods of time, which means many, many, many very thin hits.

I think your line of reasoning that heat is heat, all vaporizers are the same is a bit off the mark. You can say the same thing about a gasoline internal combustion engine. They all burn gas, gas for the most part has a pretty consistent energy density, so two engines which burn fuel at the same rate must deliver the same energy output, but we all know that not to be true. The design of the engine has a great impact on how much power it delivers at specific RPM. Vaporizers I feel are a bit the same. Bowl size and design, thermal mass of the system, air flow resistance, vapor cooling, all of these things conspire in different ways to determine how much of each psychoactive compound is liberated, what ratio, what order, and how much of each makes it to the user.

A vaporizer is no where near as complex as an engine, it is dumbfounding that you could really think an engine is comparable to a vaporizer which has about 3 parts in it....

Engines that burn fuel at the same rate can very easily be very different because there are SO MANY other variables that would effect the output of the engine. With vaporizers, which are very very simple electronic devices, this is simply not the case.

Thermal mass.... Insufficient thermal mass might not even have an effect, depending on the heating capacity of the heating element... But if it even did have an effect then it would only temporarily prevent some of the chemicals from being vaporized, which would then be vaporized in a very short period of time when sufficient heat was reached.

Air flow resistance, not sure I see you losing any chemicals to "air flow resistance."

Vapor cooling, already talked about that and how to counter it as surface area condensation.

Those aren't going to all have some crazy magical specific effect on the ratio of chemicals released. And what order........

If the chemicals are in the herb, they are going to be released when it is vaporized, the herb itself doesn't give a crap which vaporizer is heating it. The heat is what determines what is released.

Maybe someone much smarter can elaborate on "efficiencies of scale".

A Sentra will get you from A to B more "efficiently" than a Cummins turbo diesel. But the big guy will get a cord of wood from A to B more efficiently.
They both convert energy to transportation.
Different tokes for different folks.

Yeah economies of scale, or "efficiencies of scale."

That's a principle in microeconomics.

Without taking the time to write out an analogical application of that car situation to this situation I can tell you that it isn't going to work.

 

[Beezleb]

The issue is more complicated than just what type of vaporizer one uses.

 

[tuttle]

Engines that burn fuel at the same rate can very easily be very different because there are SO MANY other variables that would effect the output of the engine. With vaporizers, which are very very simple electronic devices, this is simply not the case.

1) you have obviously never taken apart a simple two stroke or diesel engine. They can be very simple. 2) Read the Bud Toaster thread, they are all not that simple.

Thermal mass.... Insufficient thermal mass might not even have an effect, depending on the heating capacity of the heating element... But if it even did have an effect then it would only temporarily prevent some of the chemicals from being vaporized, which would then be vaporized in a very short period of time when sufficient heat was reached.

In the example of a large bowl with small amount of product, it is going to take a much longer draw to expose all the material to heat. If the heater can't keep up with sustained draw, and most can not because they are not increasing the current to the heater, the amount of energy applied to each tricome is going to be less because a lot of that energy is going into heating air that is bypassing the cannabis.

Air flow resistance, not sure I see you losing any chemicals to "air flow resistance."

Restricted airflow will promote slower draws which allows air to have more time to heat.

Vapor cooling, already talked about that and how to counter it as surface area condensation.

Which is an integral part of design, i.e. whip v. bag v. short stem. So again, design plays a large role in efficiency.

Those aren't going to all have some crazy magical specific effect on the ratio of chemicals released. And what order........

If the chemicals are in the herb, they are going to be released when it is vaporized, the herb itself doesn't give a crap which vaporizer is heating it. The heat is what determines what is released.

Exactly, it isn't going to have some magical effect, it will have a very scientific effect. Like I said before, the way a vape is designed will effect the users enjoyment of the draw, as well as the ability of delivering all available psychoactive compounds. How much passive heating of the bowl (heat being applied while the user isn't drawing) may also effect the de-carboxylization of THC, thus changing the high.

Maybe someone much smarter can elaborate on "efficiencies of scale".

Yeah economies of scale, or "efficiencies of scale."

That's a principle in microeconomics.

It is a principle for a LOT more than microeconomics.

 

[vtac]

pollykok, here at FC we don't like being lectured on vaporizers by someone who clearly has very little experience with them. In fact, our rules disallow it.

Keep it up and you're gone. No more warnings.

Same goes for whatever agenda you have against specific models.

 

[bluntfaced]

You are completely high, yes. This is ridiculous and the last thing this place needs is another PD vs. MZ thread. Come on dude.....

The answer to your question is yes though, and it will become quite apparent when you actually get your hands on some of these vapes you're so knowledgeable about.

I don't recall asking your opinion about the thread itself, but go ahead and spout off. I suggest if you don't like the thread, don't participate in it. That's easy enough, right?

And I NEVER said anything like "I am knowledgeable about vapes"! Maybe you're confusing me with the guy who made the scooter analogy.

Good thing you don't have to ask for my opinion then.

You really just have to use some of these vapes though.
It will become incredibly apparent that efficiency is all about how you use it. Comparing PD and MZ or SSV and DB for efficiency is a waste of time.

Being super duber efficient is also not very fun, sometimes I just want to get ripped.

 

[stickstones]

Polly, many of those that state that the PD is the most efficient vape that they have ever used purchased theirs before there was any waiting period, including myself.

Have you used a PD or a Zap?

I actually haven't.

I haven't driven a motor-scooter, but I can tell you that if you tune two motor-scooters to the same specifications (exhaust, engine, weight, etc..) they will get basically the same gas-mileage, confounding variables aside.

And pollykok follows that up with

"A vaporizer is no where near as complex as an engine, it is dumbfounding that you could really think an engine is comparable to a vaporizer which has about 3 parts in it....

Engines that burn fuel at the same rate can very easily be very different because there are SO MANY other variables that would effect the output of the engine. With vaporizers, which are very very simple electronic devices, this is simply not the case."

Only took one day to completely conatradict yourself. You may have knowledge of some things, but experience is king.

Pollykok...your assignment is to detail your vaporizing history. Nothing else you say matters til then.

 

[pollykok]

Polly, many of those that state that the PD is the most efficient vape that they have ever used purchased theirs before there was any waiting period, including myself.

Have you used a PD or a Zap?

I actually haven't.

I haven't driven a motor-scooter, but I can tell you that if you tune two motor-scooters to the same specifications (exhaust, engine, weight, etc..) they will get basically the same gas-mileage, confounding variables aside.

And pollykok follows that up with

"A vaporizer is no where near as complex as an engine, it is dumbfounding that you could really think an engine is comparable to a vaporizer which has about 3 parts in it....

Engines that burn fuel at the same rate can very easily be very different because there are SO MANY other variables that would effect the output of the engine. With vaporizers, which are very very simple electronic devices, this is simply not the case."

Only took one day to completely conatradict yourself. You may have knowledge of some things, but experience is king.

Pollykok...your assignment is to detail your vaporizing history. Nothing else you say matters til then.

You do realize that in the quote you completely misunderstood what my analogy was for, and you didn't even take it out of context.

I was making a point that you can comment on something without having to try it and still be right.

Get it?

He asked whether I have used the PD or MZ. (implying that if I haven't I shouldn't be commenting on it)

And then I replied with an example of how you do not need to try something to be able to make an accurate presumption about it, which is correct.

My personal vaporizing history would mean about as much as my personal motor-scooting history in relation to the analogy I made before, which is not much.

 

[pollykok]

1) you have obviously never taken apart a simple two stroke or diesel engine. They can be very simple. 2) Read the Bud Toaster thread, they are all not that simple.

Whether or not the vaporizer has an extra wire or two, or a thermometer, etc. is not going to effect the outcome. A vaporizer is heat + bowl + air.

In the example of a large bowl with small amount of product, it is going to take a much longer draw to expose all the material to heat. If the heater can't keep up with sustained draw, and most can not because they are not increasing the current to the heater, the amount of energy applied to each tricome is going to be less because a lot of that energy is going into heating air that is bypassing the cannabis.

True. But the unheated trichomes are still able to be heated when the heat returns, and you are then able to obtain the active chemicals, so no product is wasted from any heating problems like that. That's efficiency.

Restricted airflow will promote slower draws which allows air to have more time to heat.

Yes, and as I said before the product that would be left unheated from the lack of heated air would still be unused and thus able to be used once it is heated, efficiency.

Which is an integral part of design, i.e. whip v. bag v. short stem. So again, design plays a large role in efficiency.

Another true point. But as I did state, the PD forces you to be efficient straight out of the box, while others don't. You can still be just as efficient with other vapes.

Just make/use a shorter whip, simple.

Exactly, it isn't going to have some magical effect, it will have a very scientific effect. Like I said before, the way a vape is designed will effect the users enjoyment of the draw, as well as the ability of delivering all available psychoactive compounds. How much passive heating of the bowl (heat being applied while the user isn't drawing) may also effect the de-carboxylization of THC, thus changing the high.

Alright, but the THC is going to be decarboxylized before it is turned into vapor, period, no matter what.. So that's not an issue....

When the herb reaches a certain temperature, the psychoactive compounds will be released, it doesn't matter what is heating it. So I don't see how the PD either magically or scientifically can trigger the release of any additional mysterious compounds from the herb..

Or are you saying that other vapes who also use heat can release the compounds but somehow cannot deliver them? idk that doesn't sound right.

It is a principle for a LOT more than microeconomics.

You might be thinking of another principle.

The issue is more complicated than just what type of vaporizer one uses.

Agreed, and that is partially one of my points.

pollykok, here at FC we don't like being lectured on vaporizers by someone who clearly has very little experience with them. In fact, our rules disallow it.

Keep it up and you're gone. No more warnings.

Same goes for whatever agenda you have against specific models.

No one is lecturing you on vaporizers.

And no amount of experience is going to give you a scientific understanding of a vaporizer and how it works, that is why the experience doesn't mean anything here.

I know that we aren't talking simple caveman trial and error right now, and it might be harder to keep up, but that doesn't mean that this type of debate doesn't belong or is unnecessary.

 

[stickstones]

Why won't you share your vaproizing history?

 

[lwien]

Why won't you share your vaproizing history?

"My personal vaporizing history would mean about as much as my personal motor-scooting history in relation to the analogy I made before, which is not much."
---pollykok

SS, the way he phrases his posts and the way he responds to those that challenge him reminds me very much of someone else that was here awhile ago. I don't remember who that was, but all of this sounds very familiar, and it's not just what he says, but how he says it.