Alright, here is a little bit more polished version of the top piece. I don't really understand some of the suggestions. Maybe once I'm sober..
So yeah the mouthpiece can't extend out too far or this will prbly not be stable. Otherwise the shape can be modified however I guess.
On the actual pillar there is only 2 tubes, since this is a sidecut. I guess it could be 6 or 8 tubes.
And I think the matrix below the pillar is actually a great idea. Should work well flow and effects.
I put the inline part lower so the pillar chamber doesn't fill too fast with smoke and then you can't see anything. Idk I still would prefer no smoke around the pillar I guess, or maybe water..
Btw. I have no clue how a matrix/bird cage works. If someone has a link that explains or shows it that be neat.
My
on that revision:
Inlet joint:
I prefer having it at the top of the dry chamber, mainly because it allows the volume of that chamber to be used. Plus I think it looks kinda cool to see the dry vapor swirl around in there for a second before it drops down through the matrix perc.
Mouthpiece:
What you've drawn there is a "bent neck" design. (Mouthpiece comes out of the top of the can then bends back)
I'd personally much rather see either a regular sidecar, a bubbler style mouthpiece (basically a bent neck but it comes out of the top of the back of the can, not the back of the top of the can if that makes sense...) or a knockoff of the SG natty splash mouthpiece design (though I notice most natty splash mouthpieces are still vertical, I was thinking more natty splash style mouthpiece, that's at a 45 degree or so angle...).
A matrix perc is basically a high end gridded showerhead, but instead of actually gridding the slits, there are bands inside the perc that break up each slit into smaller holes.
I think the fc-186 should be what's in the first pic I posted. It's not a sidecar. Sidecars are weird. They aren't symmetrical. Only really practical if you have the vape sitting on too of the can, which isn't as nice IMO because you don't get to look into the can to see the density of the hit. Not as much as with the vape on the opposite side of the can as the mouthpiece. Also, the gb-186 is more stable than having a vape on too of the can IMO, because the vape and mouthpiece balance each other since they both come out of opposite parts of the can.
I don't really agree here.
Sidecars give you basically the best view possible of the can...
I don't understand how a vape on top of the can obscures vision when the sidecar gives you a side on view of the can...
The only way I can see a sidecar having an obsecured view is if they put the joint facing the user...
Also, I really only see the stability argument being valid while a vape is perched on top of the piece... And that's when a piece is at its least stable...
Any glass with a vape on it is gonna be a bit unstable (even a nice stable design with a dewaar joint, once you put a vape on that it'll raise the centre of gravity and make it somewhat more prone to tipping.)
Especially with a larger piece like a pillar, unless the mouthpiece is absurdly long and heavy, its not going to be a major factor in how stable the thing is, but having a vape perched on it will be majorly important.
IMO it should be
-attach vape to glass
-take hit
-detach vape from glass
So the main importance imo is to have a piece that is stable when standing on its own.