In the interests of being better prepared to answer all your questions, I have just finished .08 g of Cinderella 99 in the Pax 2.
I chose this strain because in my opinion it's the tastiest on my shelf. This was primarily a tasting bowl, so I didn't track how long I spent at each temp setting or how many hits I took. I wanted to know how long the flavour would last.
My biggest criticism of the original Pax was the rapid and drastic loss of flavour, which is a direct consequence of a constant-power conduction design. (The Pax isn't the only device with this problem.) Ploom recognized this issue and came up with the new heater algorithm that I posted about earlier. Does it work? For me, the original Pax was near the bottom when it came to flavour, but the Pax 2 is near the top. The Solo is the only other constant-heat design I've used that manages to deliver good flavour for so long. It rivals pure convection devices that I use. I have a theory about the rerason for this but I'll get to that in another post.
@pakalolo so you're saying there's a major taste/vapor improvement? Does it use the same heating method? Also, how is the smell?
Yeah. Major is a good word. See above.
I haven't (and won't) take it apart so I don't know for sure, but I believe the general heater design is the same. It's still a pure conduction device.
I can't say for sure that the smell is reduced because I haven't devised a way to test that, but I can tell you that I think that it is. The source of the smell from the original Pax was a result of the constant cooking, and the Pax 2 doesn't do that any more.
Pak...I'll be most interested in your opinion on its efficiency. If they have figured out a way to have these ovens not constantly be cooking my herbs I will have to take a look.
Define efficiency. If you mean does it require huge loads, no it doesn't. I used .08 g of medium grind C99. This filled the bowl about two-thirds, since it was pretty fluffy. I did not tamp it down. From that I got maybe 20 hits overall, and it was pretty effective.
If you mean does it get the ABV dark (which some people equate with extraction) then yes it does. I get a nice even dark brown, not as black as I got from my original Pax. I suspect I could have gotten more out of it but I was done.
@pakalolo Does one end of the screen still sort of sit higher than the other or does it fit in there better? I ask because even with the smaller grooves in the og pax screen I occasionally get tiny bits of abv under the screen and in the vapor path because of this. Wouldn't the deeper grooves in the new screen lead to us needing to do more regular maintenance? Other than the mouthpiece issue being gone what will be easier about cleaning the new pax?
The oven shape is a little different (and smaller) but it still has the screen at the bottom. For those unfamiliar with the Pax, it's really the thin metal plate with the scalloped edges that you can see in the picture in my first post. The end over the tube leading to the mouthpiece must be raised slightly to allow vapour flow. Because the scallops on the edges are bigger, I think you're right that there will be an increase in particles getting under it. I don't see this becoming a big problem though, because cleaning this version is simple.
The procedure for oven maintenance is the same as before. I could be wrong but I don't think the increase in particles under the screen will be enough to change the routine. Even if it does, oven cleaning was never difficult or time-consuming. All of the reputation the original Pax has for high maintenance comes from the care and cleaning of the mouthpiece.
I don't know whether dropping it will dump the load. The lid design is different in that it isn't metal so it's about a gram lighter. Other than that it's the same. I think they're using the same super-magnets, so the lighter lid might not fly off as easily. Until someone performs a real drop test (won't be me) we won't know for sure.