Consider New Technology - Pyrolysis is sweet spot between vape and combustion

[General Disaster]

Wouldn't this mean that neither the results of the proposed device nor the example OP confirmed as appearing to be pyrolysis in another device would be "actual pyrolysis"?

Er, yes? What else? The whole idea seems pointless anyway as the ideal situation is to vapourise the active terpenoids while minimising the production of toxins and carcinogens. The temperature required to safely (safely is a relative term, but significantly safer than any sort of combustion) is perfectly achievable, the trick is applying that temperature evenly throughout the bowl without going over or under by a significant amount. This is quite possible, so why start playing with unknown methods that don't have a working design and pretty much every aspect is untested, with no proposal as to how it could be tested. How will they know their pryrolysis vape is not consuming oxygen, or outputting toxins?

At least using the current method of putting in just enough heat to vapourise without combusting is much better understood, has working methods, and is simply evolving as people try new ideas out to improve that heat distribution. Pyrolysis is a chemical reaction no-one has experienced in the realm of vaping cannabis. Making claims it's better than simply vaping needs evidence that it's not worse, just for starters.

Pyrolysis, even if someone could find a way to do it to the degree required to be worth challenging more traditional means, would not be an improvement, it may be better than outright combustion but that's all at best. And it's worth considering that by going up to pyrolysis temperatures you're also going to have more degradation of the volatile oils into those toxic carcinogens like benzene.
But even these need qualifying to mean much. How much are actually being produced and at what temperatures? And how do these compare to the dangers of environmental toxins now prevalent in almost all parts of the world and some far more dangerous?

There's many a new idea has ended up being more dangerous when the opposite was sought after. In the end everything is relative and without definitive measurements there's no proper comparisons that'll mean very much.

You definitely have strong arguments in area, that I have zero expertise, just little bit common knowledge.

I will appreciate, if you can point me to a research, about “vaping temperatures/cannabis compounds toxicity”.

Ok, just to be candid, I'm not a scientist, but I have worked in chemistry and pharmaceutical laboratories for over twenty years, so I'm not well educated but learnt a lot from working on it. So I have a much better feel for how science works and a good chunk of practical chemistry, but have big gaps in the theory but usually know what they are and don't BS them.

This isn't the paper I read on high temp dabbing, but is very similar and regardless is interesting. You ought to notice a marked difference in the style of wrting and the detail they go into. Much of it's very specialist language with lots of acronyms and such like, so don't expect to find it easy reading, but you'll probably glean bits in there that mean something more. Hope it's interesting ...

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acsomega.7b01130

When you get down to the methods you'll see what I meant about providing excruciating detail, and just how much of that there is! Also, note the number of references to other papers.

 

[hotmeals]

What else?

I don't support the pyrolysis idea either, but I don't agree that "pyrolysis" means that it necessarily occurred in a zero oxygen environment.

High temp dabbing will also produce those cyclic compounds and yet not a trace of combustible cellulose in sight!

Really? Not a trace? I agree that these compounds can be produced without pyrolysis/combustion/whatever, but I think you're wrong on this point, especially with solventless extracts.

There's no elimination going on here at all, and if there was there should be all the details as to what's happening to those toxins that causing them to be eliminated

This seems like wording semantics to me. I don't think they meant the toxins were present in the cannabis and eliminated by the vaporization process. I think they probably meant that they weren't produced, thus "eliminated" in comparison with higher temperatures and combustion.

 

[General Disaster]

I don't support the pyrolysis idea either, but I don't agree that "pyrolysis" means that it necessarily occurred in a zero oxygen environment.

It depends whether you're talking about specific definitions or general useage of the word. I tend towards the formal version, this is Wikipedia's version to chew on...

Pyrolysis is a process involving the separation of covalent bonds in organic matter by thermal decomposition within an inert environment without oxygen.

Really? Not a trace?

Yes, really. Apply enough heat to just about any molecule and it'll break down into something else. You're thinking of exothermic oxidation which as the name implies requires oxygen. Put the same substance being heated into a vacuum and it'll still degrade into other compounds. There are a great many different forms of heat related reactions of which combustion is just one specific type.

This seems like wording semantics to me.

Of course it is! But that's misleading and not precise and accurate which for any sort of real science is a no-no. And this showed in other places in the article too, it was presented in a very unscientific fashion, by any worthwhile measure.

I think they probably meant ...

There you go! The moment anyone reading a serious piece of work says "I think they probably meant..." is the moment that piece of work has failed. Any ambiguity is anathema to accuracy and precision!

I agree that these compounds can be produced without pyrolysis/combustion/whatever, but I think you're wrong on this point, especially with solventless extracts.

The compounds are not being produced, they are simply being extracted, they are already in there - if you think that's not an important point then you're not understanding the difference between a chemical reaction and a physical process.
How does a solventless extract have anything to do with this, it's a completely different extraction process used for a different purpose?
You say I'm wrong on that point (I presume you mean my comment on "elimination" as you've not seemed to have specified anything else) and yet you've also said it's a semantic issue in the use of that word which I've explained is just inadequate for any kind of meaningful science.
How exactly am I wrong, what are the details? Just saying someone is wrong without explaining why doesn't move the discussion on at all.

 

[hotmeals]

It depends whether you're talking about specific definitions or general useage of the word. I tend towards the formal version, this is Wikipedia's version to chew on...

Pyrolysis is a process involving the separation of covalent bonds in organic matter by thermal decomposition within an inert environment without oxygen.

Sure, that's the first sentence of the wikipedia article. Did you read the rest of it or look at anyone else's definition of the word? Wikipedia lists food caremelization and charred pizza as examples of pyrolysis. Those don't generally happen in a zero oxygen environment.

Yes, really. Apply enough heat to just about any molecule and it'll break down into something else. You're thinking of exothermic oxidation which as the name implies requires oxygen. Put the same substance being heated into a vacuum and it'll still degrade into other compounds. There are a great many different forms of heat related reactions of which combustion is just one specific type.

I don't know what you're responding to here. You said that cannabis concentrates contain "no trace" of combustible cellulose, and I was disagreeing with that.

Of course it is! But that's misleading and not precise and accurate which for any sort of real science is a no-no. And this showed in other places in the article too, it was presented in a very unscientific fashion, by any worthwhile measure.

There you go! The moment anyone reading a serious piece of work says "I think they probably meant..." is the moment that piece of work has failed. Any ambiguity is anathema to accuracy and precision!

I don't disagree, but nothing is perfect. I feel it is misleading to readers of the forum to intentionally misinterpret and misrepresent what was being said, without saying why.

The compounds are not being produced, they are simply being extracted, they are already in there

The cyclic compounds we were referring to are already present in the cannabis? You just said that they are "produced".

How does a solventless extract have anything to do with this, it's a completely different extraction process used for a different purpose?
You say I'm wrong on that point (I presume you mean my comment on "elimination" as you've not seemed to have specified anything else)

Nope, again, I was talking about your claim that there is "not a trace of combustible cellulose" in extracts that are dabbed. I quoted exactly what I was responding to so I'm not sure why you were confused about this.

 

[General Disaster]

Sure, that's the first sentence of the wikipedia article. Did you read the rest of it or look at anyone else's definition of the word? Wikipedia lists food caremelization and charred pizza as examples of pyrolysis.

Did you not read my comment? I said specific definition - i.e. a scientific one, a highly accurate description. Other uses of the word pyrolysis can involve so many possibilities that can include combustion. As far as I care, a definition is specific accurate and precise, or it's of only little worth and used as a tag without accuracy.

Those don't generally happen in a zero oxygen environment.

Charred pizza is not pyrolysis, there may be a little pyrolysis in there, but to call it pyrolysis is simply inaccurate, the pizza is surrounded by hot oxygen bearing air - this is why the charring starts on the outside!
Caramelisation fits the definition fine - it's happening inside a liquid that is excluding almost all oxygen, it's only on the surface that combustion can occur unless it happens to have oxygen dissolved in the liquid or it's in a container with no oxygen inside.

The cyclic compounds we were referring to are already present in the cannabis? You just said that they are "produced".

I said compounds not cyclic compounds (by the way, you do know cannabinoids are cyclic compounds, so these terms are ambiguous anyway) but got confused as I meant terpenoids - too stoned and too many posts and quotes, lost track on that one, sorry!
But point is - the toxic side products like benzene are created through a chemical reaction which can include combustion but not just that. The terpenoids are just extracted unchanged, no reaction going on.

I don't know what you're responding to here. You said that cannabis concentrates contain "no trace" of combustible cellulose, and I was disagreeing with that.

Oh! And where in this extract of terpenoids is the cellulose? The whole point of making concentrates like that is to remove the cellulose.
I'm explaining that combustion and cellulose isn't essential to produce toxic byproducts. The original article doesn't even differentiate between the chemicals produced by combustion and those from heat degradation. Other more recent papers have shown just heating terpenoids produces benzene and similar compounds, but combustion of cellulose isn't going to make the same things in the same proportions so it's important to study both elements and understand which is occurring and in what amount.

I didn't give a monkeys about the rest of that page, hence why I didn't link the whole thing - I was just after a quick definition of pyrolysis to point out it's the lack of oxygen that matters. You can have pyrolysis and combustion together, but that's not pyrolysis, it just includes pyrolysis.

I don't disagree, but nothing is perfect. I feel it is misleading to readers of the forum to intentionally misinterpret and misrepresent what was being said, without saying why.

What's misleading? My comments? The OP's comments? The article? Who is the one here intentionally trying to mislead people without saying why?
You say you don't disagree, but then continue "but" which appears to say you do disagree, but it's hard to tell what specifically you're referring to without your actually saying.

As for the rest - if your going to ignore my responses to what you previously posted, and just go on to other things, then it's a waste of time conversing because just passing over my responses to your comments until you can find something I may have got wrong isn't a productive or valid debate, it's just a battle to win an argument, not a rational, logical and empirical debate on the topic at hand.

You can count me out unless you want to have a proper discussion and not just ignore my challenges ...
(you never said anything about "...but I think you're wrong on this point, especially with solventless extracts." which I raised as I can't see what it has to do with anything as you didn't provide any detail, just made a claim, plus you said it was 'especially important' - why? How can I assimilate and fact check a blanket claim that's not explained?). I've made a major point about detail and precision and it's importance (among other things) so you can't expect me to engage with claims lacking any detail (or if you do your wasting your efforts).

What is the actual point you're trying to make? I made it clear what I was arguing against and I gave reasons. What is your position on all this then? What's the conclusion to all your disputes over what I've written? Where are you going with this?

 

[hotmeals]

Did you not read my comment? I said specific definition - i.e. a scientific one, a highly accurate description. Other uses of the word pyrolysis can involve so many possibilities that can include combustion. As far as I care, a definition is specific accurate and precise, or it's of only little worth and used as a tag without accuracy.

There are other definitions out there that say things like "usually without oxygen" or "with no or reduced oxygen", or similar.

Caramelisation fits the definition fine - it's happening inside a liquid that is excluding almost all oxygen

This is what I was trying to get at. "almost all" is not "all".

But point is - the toxic side products like benzene are created through a chemical reaction which can include combustion but not just that.

It seemed like you were trying to say that it could not be from combustion in the case of dabbing.

Oh! And where in this extract of terpenoids is the cellulose? The whole point of making concentrates like that is to remove the cellulose.

It's in there. They can't remove 100% of it can they?

What's misleading? My comments? The OP's comments? The article? Who is the one here intentionally trying to mislead people without saying why?
You say you don't disagree, but then continue "but" which appears to say you do disagree, but it's hard to tell what specifically you're referring to without your actually saying.

I thought it was misleading for you to interpret their usage of the term "eliminated" the way you did, without explaining what you explained after I mentioned it.

As for the rest - if your going to ignore my responses to what you previously posted, and just go on to other things, then it's a waste of time conversing because just passing over my responses to your comments until you can find something I may have got wrong isn't a productive or valid debate, it's just a battle to win an argument, not a rational, logical and empirical debate on the topic at hand.

I didn't try to ignore anything.

(you never said anything about "...but I think you're wrong on this point, especially with solventless extracts."

I said that I was talking about your cellulose comment. Mechanically extracted solventless extracts probably usually contain more cellulose than solvent extracted extracts.

What is the actual point you're trying to make? I made it clear what I was arguing against and I gave reasons. What is your position on all this then? What's the conclusion to all your disputes over what I've written? Where are you going with this?

I just had a couple of gripes with some of the things you said, I agree with most of it. I know I tend to come off like an asshole when I'm typing, sorry.

 

[General Disaster]

I just had a couple of gripes with some of the things you said, I agree with most of it. I know I tend to come off like an asshole when I'm typing, sorry.

That's not a problem, I'm the master of arseholes when it comes to being argumentative online.

You're welcome to disagree (I actually welcome tht) but without clear consise reasons that use my actual words and break down my conclusions by actually specifying what is incorrect, it's not helping.

For example:

(you never said anything about "...but I think you're wrong on this point, especially with solventless extracts."

"I said that I was talking about your cellulose comment. Mechanically extracted solventless extracts probably usually contain more cellulose than solvent extracted extracts."

Who mentioned mechanical vs solvent, certainly not me, I just commented on the end product in question - high purity terpenoids removed from the base cellulose substrate -that most people use for dabbing. If cellulose is still present your dabbing kit will turn to shite in a few sessions. The whole point is remove all the cellulose so you can heat it above cellulose combustion temps without any combustion.
So, how about I assume you know what you're talking about - can you explain to me how you know this is wrong and that it does contain cellulose, where do you get your information sources, how do you fact check them, etc. Prove me wrong instead of just telling me I'm wrong, describe how and why. I assume it was a link somewhere - if so give me the link and I'll check the data, just as I did the courtesy of with the (imho poorly written) article, and I'll come bask and explain why I think what think of it. Who knows, it may be correct and I may well accept that?

It's in there. They can't remove 100% of it can they?

Other way round, the terpenoids are removed from the cellulose (at least with solvent extraction, I guess mechanical is more the other way round). But the answer is yes, very much so, I could even describe many of the wet organic chemistry techniques used. I used to make my own back in the 80's using proper lab gear.
Removing plant oils from the cellulose is an old, tried and tested technique used in many many areas of science. Most drug discovery starts by taking a plant known to have therapeutic value, then removing all the base plant material (cellulose being the easiest and most plentiful) to eventually end up with a purified collection of very clean compounds that can then be separated (high purity matters for that), usually with one of types of chromatography to end up with totally pure samples of individual compounds.
Without that care and accuracy, if they were not pretty much 100% pure, then the percentages present in the plant could not be measured accurately - i.e. the researcher is already failing and they've only worked at obtaining the material they want to examine, they haven't even got to the meat of the project yet. Did you not look at that link I sent of a proper published and peer reviewed scientific paper? Did you not see just how different it was? the intense level of detail, the constant referencing of other papers where that knowledge has been assumed, and no conclusions with words like maybe, and it seems, or possibly, etc etc.
Ambiguity has no place in science, that's for things like religion and such like.

Worse, you've used the word 'probably' to claim I'm wrong - which indicates an opinion not fact checked data.
Nothing wrong with an opinion, but it doesn't cut the mustard when it comes to scientific accuracy, which is why science has developed a strict methodology, one most people rarely hear of or know about, to overcome all the vagaries of human cognition - humans in their natural mode are highly inaccurate and very disposed to bias, especially the bias that their opinions have a basis in fact, this can be surprisingly untrue to a quite exceptional degree sometimes. This is why just making claims without backing them up by saying how and why you believe them, whether they are 100% correct or not, will not help progress a train of thought.

Saying A appears to be bigger than B is opinion. Saying you measured A to four decimal places (and how and with what kind of measuring tool and how it was calibrated and at what ambient temperature and so on...) with error correction included, and came out with a value of X, and then did same to B and got value of Y, and Y turns out to be greater than X by Z% (or some such bollocks like that) - that's a real comparison and essentially how you do science (or part of it). (that's greatly simplified of course but I hope you see where I'm coming from).

Lets face it - in the end, it don't matter a fuck whether I'm right or you're right or we are both wrong etc etc. What real world difference will it make? I've explained my come backs - e.g. you spoke of caramelisation, instead of just saying you're wrong, I explained why you're wrong (or why Wikipedia is wrong to be more accurate and fair) - e.g. that the inside of of a liquid may well exclude oxygen enough for pyrolysis to occur inside causing caramelisation. I've done similar in other factors you've questioned. Yet although you couldn't come back with a reason I was wrong, you still find it difficult to accept what I've said.

I'm happy to engage, if someone gives a proper reason I can look up and fact check that shows I'm wrong, I'll accept that and be glad I now know even more and have corrected bad data!

But just telling me I'm wrong without the reasons why, well anyone can do that, it doesn't mean much, to me at least.
Have you thought about why you want to disagree so much? Is it my unfortunate style of writing? I could well understand that - a lot of people find it seems patronising and know-it-all, and maybe it is, though it's not intentional at all; it's not the nicest easiest prose to digest at the best of times, but I don't make comments lightly and if I'm not sure of something (reasonable doubt) I'll say so, and for the massive number of things I know shit about, I'll just keep quiet on the topic and listen to others who hopefully know more than I.