max said:
I do not agree in calling the condensed thc with the DB or SSV a "loss through condensation" as it can easily be reclaimed via scraping clean to ISO cleaning and evap which is a highly prized product and for me personally was in part a reasoning why I chose this style of vaporizer over a non wand based vaporizer.
You can't reclaim all of the condensed vapor (especially with a vape that uses tubing or bags), so the more condensation there is, the less efficient the vape.
Aside from condensation loss, which varies with the vape design, a full sized whip unit can be used as efficiently as a vape like the PD. But for the most part, people don't use them that way. I'll use the analogy I've used before. Who wants to drive a sports car with the primary aim being high fuel efficiency? It's frustrating and unenjoyable. So with a full sized vape 99 of 100 people are gonna take bigger hits than you can get with a PD. And unless you believe that the body can absorb 100% (or close to it) of the THC from a big hit in a couple of seconds (I don't), big hits are less efficient. You can count bowls and vapor tubes sure, but the bottom line is that the vast majority of people are gonna use more herb with a full sized vape than with a small bowl vape like the PD. I've found the same to be true to a lesser extent with the Vapolution, which I used extensively for a couple of years. The narrow bowl on the vape consistently allowed me to stretch my supply vs. a regular size whip vape.
So efficiency in this area is more 'real world use', and not just what is possible. Just like I'm always gonna eat more food if I'm in an 'all you can eat' buffet restaurant. It's just human nature.
In my opinion your taking that view too far as the opinion is based on too many subjective and changing factors.
The whip residue can and is able to be reclaimed, most people generally choose to utilize new tubing after reclamation rather than reusing the tubing so I would not say that condensed THC in a tube is not generally reclaimed but merely replaced. Some reasoning for using new tubing after reclamation is if ISO is used it can affect the tubing from changing it opaque to hardening it.
You say "most people" tend to use but how to come by that acknowledgment of most people? Is it based on your own preference as you indicate? What populace of users, meaning did you take into consideration the typical usage habits of daily recreation users, weekly recreation users? medical users? etc. The big picture is too large to generically label "most users" across the board without defining or identifying the populace you are basing your view on. Such as, from my view those who use weed every day or in my view those who use a few times per week tend to report to imbibe differently, many medical users imbibe differently based on their needs in part just to name off a few groups of imbibers.
I just find it faulty in thinking to generically believe most people utilize weed or have preferences in any one way. From what I see is that you put too much emphasis on your own personal view when it comes to the usage to others. Would be nice if we could somehow obtain usage habits by populace and more scientifically come to a more true illustrative understanding than throwing unrealistic figures like 99 out of a 100 as if that is some kind of fact when it is mere opinion based on your views which is fine but you word it as a matter of fact and based on the general viewpoint of the forum as stating fact from view/opinion this stands out to me.
That is all I am saying and I am only saying it as I strive to direct people to vaporizers based on "their" needs and their views which obviously does not fit a single generic category. To see diversity, just look at the PD experience thread and look at how many alterations people make to their usage with the PD/Myrtlezap. It is a simple device, its used one way but yet look at people to alter the temp, to cool the vapor, to change the draw method. Then look at how many people say they use at least 2 stems. The big picture is far too complicated and diversified to generically lump together.
I do agree to a point with you though, the DBV is in my opinion is not a PD/Myrtlezap equivalent in performance at small amounts but I just do not see the reality of efficiency from the PD/Myrtlezap translating to anything that would give a baby a sensation if the difference was isolated and imbibed on its own on a per use/single basis and with using equal amounts of product. Obviously Im hardly saying that from a scientific data perspective but the level of condensation that occurs is passively insinuated is not realistic in my view.
I will say I share your view not liking the DBV at smaller amounts from a heavy/regular recreation perspective but not all users would share that view. I bet if you asked tom if he ever fathomed what all the people do with his vaporizer he would be surprised at it all. I also disagree with your view of being at an all you can eat restaurant. While you certainly can eat all you can, you do not have to and since these restaurants do pretty well and they are actually betting people wont eat all they can I would say that concept is not really valid on a big picture view point, while it may be valid from your perspective there is a difference.
I also disagree with your car analogy as its applicable only when comparing equal amounts used in the PD/Myrtlezap and wand/whip based vaporizer and this is where the PD/Myrtlezap loses its shine in the efficiency aspect in my opinion. I say this as the PD/Myrtlezap only shows true efficiency if a user only uses one stem, but in your car analogy you set up the wand/whip vaporizer with a full wand which is twice the amount of the PD/Myrtlezap stem but you compare it an unequal amount in the PD stem. In order for your analogy to work it would need to be considered that both vaporizers equally have the same amount of weed compared (1 stem verse 1/2 filled wand) and the end result of that is that you are pretty much equally high, however, the PD/Myrtlezap certainly performs better at that amount largely in my opinion based on a vapor to air ratio which favors the PD/Myrtlezap at equal and regular use amounts and from this perspective the PD/Mytrlezap wins big on performance but both vape categories using this small equal amount will get you were you want to be and for those who use small amounts and fit this category as I describe I recommend the PD/Myrtlezap.
However here are some other aspects to consider as well, the ABV from the PD/Myrtlezap is typically reprocessed further and this aspects also detracts from the efficiency as its matter of fact illustrative of THC still locked in the material. The same is true for the temperature variable wand/whip vaporizers but this is a variable based on the users preference as the users selected temperature setting and method of use is going to determine how effective the actual vaporization process is and thus it becomes difficult to truly gage the two vaporizer designs in true efficiency without a laboratory setting in this regard to how much is left in the ABV. On the other hand it could be considered similar in concept to reclaiming condensed THC as it can be reclaimed/processed so perhaps it is not really an overall efficiency issue and just a per session efficiency issue.
Now if you compare equal amounts in these two vaporizer categories such as using 1 regular wand = 2 PD/Myrtlezap stems and take into consideration the condensation from wand/whip which in my opinion equates to minuscule amounts of transference through condensation it would likely take a laboratory of some sorts to effectively monitor. On a per session use basis this is an extremely small amount in my experience and can be reclaimed later as it builds up over time, any amount that is not reclaimed would itself be so small it would largely be insignificant in my opinion and as such I feel its inappropriate to portray the issue as if its represented be a significant issue as otherwise it works to potentially mislead people in believing this is a big an ordeal when in reality its not a big deal. The main problem with using two stems with the PD/Myrtlezap in relation to comparing efficiency as the PD/Myrtlezap only really gains true efficiency if a person only vapes one stem and stops thus achieving a per session savings of a full stems worth of weed in comparison to those who use a full wand. However if more than one stem is used than the true realistic efficiency rating of the two vaporizers is comparable as in my opinion as condensation is not a true loss due to reclamation and any potential loss that is not reclaimed is extremely slight in my view. Add in the view point of potential potency of the ABV of both vaporizer categories I find it difficult to proclaim the PD/Myrtlezap a matter of fact high efficient vaporizer over other vaporizers and in this discussion specifically towards temperature variable wand/whip vaporizers.
There is no doubt the PD/Myrtlezap are better performers at utilizing smaller amounts of weed but I can only agree that PD/Myrtlezap is super efficient if a person only uses one stem, otherwise the realistic physical savings of weed is just not there and it is my opinion based off recollecting the reviews of many PD users that people tend to use 2 stems which is the same amount of most other vaporizers. Outside of that the reality of efficiency is variable, subjective and miniscule on a per session basis to not matter in my opinion and over time most of efficiency variables and aspects can be reclaimed through recollecting built up condensation, which is highly prized, and reprocessing ABV.
Man I wrote a lot, good wand and good discussion hehe. Those are my views and my reasons, take from it what you will.
Rayski, I was thinking more along the lines of using a smaller wand/tube/heater cover in order to achieve a higher vapor to air ratio with using smaller amounts of material.
I believe that if the the volume of the wand was smaller and the amount of air was decreased smaller amounts of weed could be vaped with a higher performance and would appeal to a good part of the population. In my fantasy world 7th floor would make it so you could swap out the original hands free heater cover for the DBV and with a smaller size replacement and the same with the SSV. As far as I know there may be practical reason not to do that and it was just a thought I had. If it is a question of vapor to air ratio than I would hope this could be redesigned for use with smaller amounts. I think it would require a new heater cover, wand and tubing size maybe.