Scientific study of vaporizers needs help

[Hippie Dickie]

it might also provide information about the quality of the components selected by a particular manufacturer ... i.e. are all fans (diaphram pump or whatever) equivalent -- i.e. how much spallation is going on? what particle size of plastic (silicon?) is injected into the air stream (if any).

 

[GC]

I have lots of catching up to do but I'll start with Purple days vape selection post.
Thanks for this post Purple Days.
I'm skeptical that I can run such an extensive survey because the costs will be too high so I really would like to get from you the 5 most important vapes to test. I think popularity is a major factor although I doubt there are any statistics regarding how many units are out there. Would it be safe to say that 85% of vapes are of 5 brands? I'm wondering if I can get the distribution of vapes among members of this forum somehow (Although, most of the world is outside the US and I would guess they have vaporizers too...).
Now lets define the desired outcome of this study:
First, it is quite established that vape is healthier than smoking so I don't think much effort should go into that. There are two questions I would like to answer:
1. Cost effectiveness, a combination of the efficiency and price of the device (The most efficient is not necessarily the most cost effective. As a side project, I want to be able to get a formula that will tell you depending on your usage how long it will take to get your investment back with each device)
2. Health issues associated with specific or types of vapes. For this I may only need to run them empty and see if material is emitted. It would for example be good to test a really crappy vape from China for example and show that it is toxic (or maybe that it is perfectly ok...). I'll post later about the challenges of good analysis and instrumentation issues but now lets imagine I can pull off the ideal experiment and test 12 devices. I would like to know more of your and others thoughts.

Since, as you point out, most existing studies use the Volcano, that is the obvious choice as a control. The Volcano is a 'bag vape' and I will get into the advantages and drawbacks of each extraction and delivery system in a few.

#1 Vape (and control) The Volcano by S&B

The Volcano is definitely in.

Next ,I think you need another 'bag vape', to compare. Are all 'bag vapes' created equal?

#2 Another bag vape. I think the Zephyr is a good candidate and recent market entry.

I tend to agree that another bag vape is needed. Not everybody can afford a Volcano and I think the second one should be both cheap(er) and popular. Does the Zephyr qualify?

Next would be the 'whip vapes'. Passive draw and fan assisted.
Passive: From simple crappy box vapes to the good box vapes, to the Silver Surfer Vaporizer, these run the gamut.
Fan assisted: Probably others but only the Vapezilla comes to mind at this time.

#3 Silver Surfer Vaporizer
#4 Vapezilla by Wicked Roots

Here again I think there should be the most prestigious in the category and then something cheap but with reasonable popularity. Would these still be the right candidates?

Next Direct Draw or Log vapes. As above, they are not all the same.

#5 Purple-Days

I think so too. Any cheap imitations around? What is the ballpark market share of this category in your opinion?

Next are butane portables. They are certainly the most widely varied, from the Vapor Genie to the Iolite. Both good examples but very different.

#6 Vapor Genie
#7 Iolite

Next in a category by itself is another portable, the MFLB Magic Flight Launch Box, an electric.

#8 MFLB
#9 Bud Toaster (coming soon and another unique design)

Next is a true conduction device the 'bubble vape', the glass dome over a heated pan, poorly regarded by all, but used by many as an introduction to vaping.

#10 BC Vape

Next three are related, and use Head Glass.

You have home use butane.

#11 Clear Dome's Flame Filter

Next would be the Heat Wand.

#12 Vape X-Hale Cloud

Next would be the Heat Gun

#13 Steinel Heat Gun

I'm convinced that these represent distinct categories but do all these represent a significant amount of users? Can people attempt to prioritize please.

Those are the dirty dozen that I see as best representing the wide array of vape systems, based on reading here and personal use of several. I don't think 5 covers the territory.

I think exhaled vapor is a red herring as far as extraction studies. Each user will be different so you can only measure inhaled vapor and it's contents. A study of exhaled THC (THC used generically to describe the whole spectrum of canabinoids) would be interesting but not to the point of this study.

You are probably right here.

Now we start on variables and parameters related to normal usage that may be considered.

Any system that requires user input needs some qualification and standards. First is vaporization temperatures, many units have a variable temperature (some digital and rarely to be trusted) and results can vary from mild and invisible, to strong and harsh, up to combustion. Again the Volcano as a standard comes to mind, but you will have to get the temperature of the 'load' in a Volcano and adjust all others to that standard, or your end result and conclusions will be questionable. #s 6, 8, 9 and 10 variable according to user realtime input may give you a helluva time. #5 is a set temp, but for purposes of comparison the temp can be adjusted (by voltage input) to the standard temp set by the Volcano.

The temp data exists in previous studies (including temp dependence for the volcano) so I will have to decide on a common temp for all perhaps determined by the PD that has no temp control on the user level. Devices that have a manufacturer recommended temp might have to be tested in that temp as well.

For those systems that require a user draw #s 3, 5, 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13. Speed and duration are very important to the end results. Whips are generally cleared of 'clean' air before the 'real' draw begins. Same for the direct draw type.

For units that use water filtration the draw time and speed may be different due to lower temps and the higher humidity, allowing longer/deeper draws. Also the hydraulic/pressure (?) resistance of the water forces a bit faster draw, to maintain the flow and therefor faster draw speeds.

Filtration brings up condensation and loss during vaping to the surfaces the vapor contacts. This loss would be interesting to study also. I assume most folks never re-claim that loss, but it is a factor of extraction vs. delivery.

I'm not sure I can / should tune the draw for every instrument. How about just taking a constant amount of herb, using it up at a constant reasonable speed that will be determined for all and quantifying everything that comes out of it? Regarding water passage, I understand that it may ease the draw but I've just read that passing the vapor (or smoke) through water will significantly reduce the amount of THC since it is trapped in water. http://www.ukcia.org/research/pipes.php

So yeah GC, go for it, but do it with a representative cross section of the vapes that people use. And please make it scientifically significant.

My unqualified and pre-judged judgement: run the same load, at the same temperature and draw speed and the results will all be within margin of error. Change any variable and the results don't mean much.
There is a perfect bathing suit... and only one required... if we all were exactly the same. I see a place in life for each and every example listed above. Not all 'right for me' but I see a place for each.

It will take some time for me to figure out how many I can practically test inder a given budget / instrumentation time constraint but I'll do my best to do it well. What load should I use?

A Purple-Days Diffuser is available for any legitimate scientist to use in testing. I think there are others who would donate to a legitimate cause. Good luck.

I wish you said that before, I already ordered my Pandora kit

 

[Beezleb]

I recommend the following choices (in no specific order):

Bag: Volcano, Extreme Q, Zephyr, Herbalaire

Whip: SSV, DBV, Vapor Bros, Easy Vape, Hot Box.

Direct draw (non whip): Purple Days, Myrtlezap

Portable (Battery): Magic Flight Launch Box, vapir Oxygen
If you want to do lighter based portables their are options for that too.

If I had to pick a number I would do two vapes for each category you plan on testing, I would select 2 bag, 2 whip and 2 direct draw non whip.

 

[chucku]

I disagree with Tom on some of his vape selections/suggestions. The Bud Toaster should not be included because it is not commercially available. Hippie Dickie (creator of the Bud Toaster) is sourcing component suppliers and has not yet commenced production beyond a few prototypes. The Vape X-Hale Cloud should not be included either since it is not yet available (insulation for the heating unit is still being evaluated). Once these models are released that is another matter entirely. The Vapezilla from Wicked Roots is another questionable choice. If I recall correctly, it was not the performance of the Vapezilla, but its limitations and Toms frustrations and disgust with Wicked Roots customer (dis)service that prompted him to create the Purple Days vaporizer. Of the fan assist type better choices may be the Vaporfection Stealth II.......

http://www.gotvape.com/store/vaporfection-stealth-vaporizer.php

or the Evolutions V7.........

http://www.gotvape.com/store/evolutions.vaporizer.php

Also instead of the wood Vapor Genie, consider either of their aluminum models or the glass Vapor Genie.

You should also look at a combo vape such as the Extreme (whip/bag/fan assist) or Herbalaire (direct draw/bag/fan asasist) since both of these vapes are capable of more than one technique with aplomb.

Also consider the Aromed since it is equally capable of processing solid plant material and liquid extracts.

http://www.gotvape.com/store/aromed.vaporizer.php

 

[Dodzilla]

I've got a Volcano and an SSV on the way, I'd possibly be willing to loan them out for scientific testing. I would absolutely love to see some real data on these things. You very well might be able to get a few manufacturers to loan you units for testing too.

 

[AGBeer]

For the sake of science, I would be willing to volunteer a set of average lungs.

There are some good choices here, but I think the REAL testing should also be based on the MATERIALS that are in the vape as well. We all know that there have been several huge shit storms generated as a result of 'what the manufacturer puts in their vapes'.

RoHS seems to be the huge 'buzz acronym' around here, and it has steered several a folk to or from a vape or two. Also, plenty of discussions have taken place regarding nylon/vinyl/silicon amongst other plastics that are widely used.

 

[Purple-Days]

Thanks Chucku, I could not recall another fan assist whip vape other than the Zilla.

I never dealt with Wicked Roots customer service other than the original purchase which was handled promptly and that was that. Others certainly came down on them for fake review sites and other items, but my problems were with the unit and it's design mostly. Loud fans, poor dust protection design on the fan inlets, long cool down time, hot air blowing all the time etc... did I mention LOUD FANS... But, the unit was a beast for super hits. It won a Cannibis Cup Award, and while some say thiose can be bought, I gotta say that vape gave killer hits while it worked. Mine died shortly after the warranty and I choose not to have it repaired (for more money than other good vapes were going for new, my choice).

I included the HDBT because it was a unique design that looks like it will be available soon. Same basically for why I included the X-Hale. My chooices sure aren't written in stone, just tossed them out there.

GC you will have fun building the PDP.

If I were to narrow it down to 5 . . .

Bag- Volcano.
Whip- Silver Surfer vaporizer
Fan Assisted Whip- Super-Vapezilla
Direct Draw- Purple-Days Original (or Pandora)
Water Filtered Heat Source- VHW

If the list is expanded the Zephyr (made in China) is a less expensive than the Volcano.

The counterpart to the Silver Surfer Vaporizer would be a cheapo chinese box vape. Preferably a digital one from E-Bay for under $50, assuredly made in China to the highest Chinese standards.

Vaporfection if you need a second fan assist whip vape.

The rest of the vapes fall into a category, or categories, that will be very hard to quantify results. As I said user input is very important in some units such as the Vapor Genie. Read up a little on how it is used and how learning curves are duiscussed. It's not as simple as flipping a switch. And I agree if you are gonna test a Vapor Genie do the aluminum version too, but there must be zillion wooden VGs out there.

Testing empty is the obvious choice but let's refer to a recent post from a DaBudda user. http://www.fuckcombustion.com/viewtopic.php?id=3313
" ... quote from the 7th Floor website, "Our unit uses a metal screen in the wand but the air has cooled enough by passing threw your tobacco, so no metal ions are released from the screen"... " he goes on to pose this question, "And if you were to inhale with no weed on the screen.... fucking ions are being released??" You may see his point. Using a vaporizer in a non standard configuration (no load) may give different results...

What about homoginization of the load BTW? Since one bud can vary in potency from the next you need a very stable sample from vape to vape or results will be skewed. Sure you can blend it, but you may not be a user and may not realize that statification of the sample will happen and trichromes 'the potent part' will settle to the bottom of your sample batch. Any thoughts on how to get a 100% consistent input before you test the output? I have a couple of thoughts but they would be pretty involved. THC extraction from the sample (the jail time goes up for this step), measuring the extract to the nth then re-distributing it on an inert substrate (similar in texture to ground weed).

Consider also that humidity of the product and the air are relevant and must be standardized. Room air temps (the air drawn into the vape affects end vape temps)) and barometric pressure (it affects boiling point?) should be considered, so that each vape is tried under as similar conditions as possible.

All for now.

 

[Dodzilla]

Does the load need to be homogenized to that degree? Seems like what we're really after is efficiency so it's more the ratio of THC content in the vapor versus the THC content left over in the ABV that would be important. Certainly the larger the sample size the better, in terms of the number of loads you run through each unit. I may misunderstand how this is being measured and what the important numbers are. This forum rocks, took me too long to come across it.

What about homoginization of the load BTW? Since one bud can vary in potency from the next you need a very stable sample from vape to vape or results will be skewed. Sure you can blend it, but you may not be a user and may not realize that statification of the sample will happen and trichromes 'the potent part' will settle to the bottom of your sample batch. Any thoughts on how to get a 100% consistent input before you test the output?

 

[Purple-Days]

Dodzilla, I believe if you are going to do a study of output, you have to have a consistent input. The old saying garbage in garbage out applies top this too.

As an example, if we were comparing gas milage. Using 87 octane in one car and 89 in another and 92 in another... even though the octane is very close the test results are skewed and meaningless since you have not controlled the relevant (energy) input. You would have to use the same octane in all cars for significant results.

Other factors are involved too. Testing car A with a tailwind and testing car B in calm air and car C in a headwind would skew the results too.

GC is after a conclusive scientific test and we are talking about measuring micrograms (picograms?) of output, so differences of micrograms of input will affect the output.

Like I say the PD would be donated for scientific tests. But, the protocols would have to be pretty good before I would consider it to be 'scientific'. Otherwise we could just sit around on pillows listening to Bob Marley and do our own 'scientific study'.

 

[gim]

Like I say the PD would be donated for scientific tests. But, the protocols would have to be pretty good before I would consider it to be 'scientific'. Otherwise we could just sit around on pillows listening to Bob Marley and do our own 'scientific study'.

Is this an option? I'll bring a pillow.

 

[Purple-Days]

I've got mine (pillow) and some other music suggestions too.

I might also point out to GC that while vapes 'can' conserve and pay for themselves, he may take note of the analogous (what the opposite? of that) findings in the bong and smoke study linked above. The Smoke/Bongers were trapping THC (which this board should find very curious ) in the water. Also trapping irritants, (both, IMO) leading to increased consumption... and therefor more tar intake overall.

I think the same happens with vape users in some ways. Initially you can use less mass to maintain the same THC* intake, but the non-irritating effects of vapor vs. smoke allow more consumption.

And then there is grazing. The ability to sample all day, that smokers are rarely able to do, because of the odor.

You can't count on a vape being the conservator of weed that you may suspect. Many members of this forum have come to the same conclusion, IMO. Sure, we conserve resources, better utilization, but we may use no less than before, and just maximize effect.

I'm back to pillows on the floor and some Pink Floyd.

 

[GC]

What about homoginization of the load BTW? Since one bud can vary in potency from the next you need a very stable sample from vape to vape or results will be skewed. Sure you can blend it, but you may not be a user and may not realize that statification of the sample will happen and trichromes 'the potent part' will settle to the bottom of your sample batch. Any thoughts on how to get a 100% consistent input before you test the output? I have a couple of thoughts but they would be pretty involved. THC extraction from the sample (the jail time goes up for this step), measuring the extract to the nth then re-distributing it on an inert substrate (similar in texture to ground weed).

Consider also that humidity of the product and the air are relevant and must be standardized. Room air temps (the air drawn into the vape affects end vape temps)) and barometric pressure (it affects boiling point?) should be considered, so that each vape is tried under as similar conditions as possible.

All for now.

I wasn't aware that the trichomes settle. I just pick a bud and cut it with scissors into my joint.
How about grinding the full amount for the whole experiment and dispensing it (fixed weight) from a large "salt shaker". Then I can take random single portions and check for consistency by repeating the experiment in the same device as a control.
What should be the amount and how finely ground?

 

[Purple-Days]

Ahh, I didn' think you had finely (coarse vs,. fine) defined your controls. Not a problem, but you certainly have to get better control of your octane than that.

BTW GC you should have checked my Shakey Screen. A PD invention. Yep, the trichromes are where the action is, and they settle, no getting around that, and I would fault any protocol that missed it.

This is a much more complex issue than you seem to perceive. Not a put down of your knowledge, but an aspect that you have not considered. Even from the same plant the buds can vary in potency. The upper buds being subjected to 'better' light will have a higher THC* concentration than lower or inner buds. An if you are measuring output, then input must be controlled. I am sure, as a man of science, you see that.



How to put this??? Stems have very little THC* . Seeds have even less. Leaves have more but not much. 'buds' have several parts including guard leaves that have (and don't have) trichromes, depending on strain. Well trimmed buds show no leaves, but the trim has been collected and the total output of the plant has not been diminished, however the concentration of THC has been upped by removal of Lower %THC bearing leaves. etc....


What I am trying to say is, you can't assume all weed is created equal. And you can't assume that taking three buds of Joe Blow's AK47 and three buds of Jane Doe's Ak47 as equals. NOr can you take 6 buds of Joe's AK and assume they are all equal. Nor can you grind those 6 buds and assume small samples of the batch grind will be equal. This is not a homogenous substance. You cannot make it that way by simple grinding and mixing. It is not a liquid... It will settle and no longer be homogenous. Simple as that... It would require extraction and quantification then re-distribution on a suitable surface, before any scientific study of extraction could begin IMO.

We need lots and lots of pillows... and more music. Best of luck GC, just putting the points out there.

Mind my points on Barometeric pressure and the others too...

If it's science it's repeatable.

 

[stickstones]

A little late here, but my opinion on vape selection is:

Extreme Q -- because it does bags, whips and whip assisted hits you can save on expenses by using one vape that gives multiple delivery options. Also, it would help the control element of your experiments as you won't be comparing vapor from the Volcano's bag to the Silver Surfer's whip. You could truly compare the delivery methods for different variables since the vaporization is constant in the one unit.

Zephyr Ion -- this is the vaporizer that currently competes most directly with the Volcano. I wouldn't use it and the Volcano unless you are comparing the two. Otherwise you have duplication of bag blowers in an experiment that is going to have some sort of cost cap.

Iolite -- its current reliability issues might make it a pain to deal with, as well as its inconsistencies might make your results less reliable.

LaunchBox -- you should talk to these guys, as they do the most extensive lab testing of vaporizers of anyone I have heard of recently, and you can dialogue with them here.

In the beginning, I would suggest keeping it simple and just lumping vapes into a bag or direct draw category. You can go batty trying to categorize all the different vapes out there as there seems to always be a new one coming out that does something unique. You've already got a PD on the way, and I would suspect that everyone around here is going to be interested in your efficiency findings with that unit. You can always expand the scope of your experiments along the way as your findings direct you.

 

[stonemonkey55]

Max made a great comment in the VapeXhale thread concerning the body's ability to absorb THC within the vapor. I think that would be a great, logical next step to your study. My gut feeling is that all the vaporizers that you will be testing will be capable of producing vapor that is far safer than smoke. I think that the results will be very close for all the units tested with a slight edge going to the vapes that have some sort of heat controller.

What I would find interesting is how the readily the body can absorb the THC from the vapor once it is in the lungs and whether or not holding it in drastically/marginally increases potency.

Great start GC - I will be very, very curious to see/hear your results.

 

[abhs]

In the beginning, I would suggest keeping it simple and just lumping vapes into a bag or direct draw category. You can go batty trying to categorize all the different vapes out there as there seems to always be a new one coming out that does something unique. You've already got a PD on the way, and I would suspect that everyone around here is going to be interested in your efficiency findings with that unit. You can always expand the scope of your experiments along the way as your findings direct you.

^ plus plus.

no need to decide on vapes before agreeing upon the protocol. start with the PD, and use a joint and bong as your references. you can test other vaporizers as you go. GC, how is GC/MS reading going?

in regards to tom's earlier qualms on variable bud potencies, these can be easily allayed by running replicates. you run three samples (three different PD stems), and compare them to each other. if they don't vary too much, that means that 1. the instrument is reading with precision and 2. that the sample inputs were not too different from each other to cause a significant difference in readouts. use one strain of weed for all your testing, across vapes.. if that is not possible, use different strains on each vape but run the bong/joint references each time a new strain is run.

we can get this protocol down so don't pull out those pillows yet.

 

[Purple-Days]

I agree ^^^, that's what is needed, a sensible yet scientific protocol, to make things as even as possible from test to test.

I'm thinking your replicates formula would be appropriate in any case. Right? But, thoughts about using (at least) a well homogenized load, from the same homogenous 'master batch', throughout the entire testing cycle, would be a start toward having usable end results.

I still think this is not really possible to have a homogenous and precisely identical load. , and since you will be comparing output at some miniscule measurement, and if the similarity of the samples is not 'identical'... then does the final reading mean anything, unless the results are so grossly different that the input could not possibly have caused the results? Just asking.

And don't discount the pillows just yet. I think this forum has already come to some conclusions without a lab full of equipment. Not knocking science.

And I'm not even sure that comparing a Volcano and a PD is even a reasonable thing to do. They aren't generally used by the same folks or for the same reasons. Different tools for different jobs.

 

[abhs]

ok i think i'm about to go nerdfest.

for homogeneity, we have two metrics 1. the sample size and 2. the number of bud bits in the sample. we can make a statistically sensible "homogenous" mixture like so - grind up 1 g bud ground to a consistency where 15-20 bud pieces fit in a PD bowl. dump in an inert container with sufficient area to prevent settling (i'm thinking petri dish). shake before each fill. fill all three bowls to brim. using about .2 g for 3 PD bowls, use remainder on joint and bong. controls are larger samples, which is good. 3 replicates determines whether there is homogeneity conserved amongst the PD bowls.

you may be right, it could be impossible to produce homogenous bud. i have a feeling it won't be. only one way to find out. but yes, final reading means nothing if the replicate disparities are statistically significant. it is what it is. you said it yourself, good science must be reproducible.

i think there are many other factors that determine a vaporizer's utility, too. i want to see if some vapes leak harmful substances. maybe none do.

i actually was on pillows before i wrote this. i wasn't going to, but i was thinking of a way to tell stonemonkey why it wasn't a logical step to progress from this experiment to lung diffusion.. but then i realized that there already HAVE been studies on lung diffusion we could utilize

http://pats.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/1/4/338

the smaller peptides they studied were 5 kDa masses. that is 5000 g/mol, THC is 315. it also looks just like a protein - is relatively nonpolar and hydrophobic. the shorter peptides took 1-2 minutes to diffuse. based off that rate, thc would take at MAX 1 minute to diffuse, and probably shorter times like 30 seconds. so in sum, max time you should try to ghost hits is 1 minute, and 30 secs is probably sufficient. any longer and all you're doing is drying your lungs.. that actually decreases their efficiency for later hits.

 

[Raf007]

Congrats guys, it s really interesting ! Looking forward for the outcomes.

Little note on the side: Tom I don't see why one could not compare Cano to PD, I mean I have a one of these and wouldn't bother having both... for ex and I m sure I'm not the only one. Both are vapes after all, different tools for the same job imHo;
what's with this segregation you trying to create ?

 

[Purple-Days]

No Cano-Hate from me. Much respect to S&B and their product. And they are both used for extraction, I agree. But, they (all vapes) have their own limitations and their own special niche. I would not want a Volcano as my 'middle of the night' bedside nausea unit, or my workbench unit. And I would not want to try to satisfy a party of more than 2-3 people with a PD. Nor would I take my PD on a backpack adventure as I would a VaporGenie.

So, while one unit may prove more 'fuel efficient' than another, no one vape, no matter how efficient it is will satisfy all needs. It's like the car industry in some ways. Some folks need a some need a Car (Purple-Days) some need a SUV (Volcano), or a Truck (SilverSurferVaporizer) some folks even need four-wheel drive (VaporGenie). Fuel efficiency has little to do with some of those four choices. And some folks have two or three.

 

[IAmKrazy2]

I just found this thread and am very intrigued. Some great thoughts so far, looking forward to the research.

 

[Raf007]

Totally agrre w. you Tom, And imHo that is exactly why they can and should be compared. Especially when it comes to "fuel" efficiency here.
It would be very interesting actually.

Just my here chillin on a pillow...

 

[Purple-Days]

I am still troubled by any 'scientific' attempt at measuring output without quantifying input.

How to test my ideas without too much time or effort...

Theory:
A batch mix, of a non-homogenous substance, when divided carefully, will not yield like samples.

Test:
I have a coin jar. Non-homogenous mix of Pennies, Nickels and dimes. About 500 coins in the pile. We don't know the proportion of the different values, just a pile of random coins, well mixed and dumped in a pile.

I part the waters. Divide the coins in half as carefully as I can. Then each pile into halves, then again, etc. till I have 16 piles. Choose 5 piles at random.

Results:

Given in Number of coins: Pennies, Nickels, Dimes - then value.
A: 28: 24,3,1 - 49 cents
B: 31: 29,2,0 - 39 cents
C: 31: 26,1,4 - 71 cents
D: 37: 34,3,0 - 49 cents
E: 31: 31,0,0 - 31 cents

Statistical manipulation:

A common way to do this, is toss out the high and low figures as aberrations.

If we use the number of coins (representing mis-weighed samples) and toss the H/L #s we have samples B-C-E, three samples of 31 coins each. These three samples yield a wide range of total value from 31 Cents to 71 Cents.

Another H/L scenario is throw out the H/L dollar values. Samples A-B-D different coin count samples you have a value from 39-49 cents.

Conclusions: It is not practical, reasonable, or scientific to take a non-homogenous batch of something, mix it completely, then divided it by weight or volume, and depend on the results (value) being identical in each sample.

Garbage in garbage out as they say. Not that I think the study of this can't work, you just have to have identical samples before you can start to call it science. Otherwise...

We need more pillows. And maybe some Hummin' Birds that hum so loud you would think you were losing your mind...

 

[abhs]

Conclusions: It is not practical, reasonable, or scientific to take a non-homogenous batch of something, mix it completely, then divided it by weight or volume, and depend on the results (value) being identical in each sample.

when you mix something completely, you are in fact homogenizing it. still, let's look at how this study can get over the fact that not all buds are created equal. grinding the bud to an extent that there are many pieces per sample (say 15-20), and attempting to make it so that all pieces are from different parts of the plant (by shaking) *should* be a statistically sensible sampling. *should* because there is a large enough range of values within the sample that their average closely approaches the average of the whole sample being pooled from.

if you notice from your test, even a mixture of coins approaches an average once there is a large enough sampling size. if you increased the size of each sample to include more coins, it would approach an average even more closely.

bud is not a good comparison to coins, but i think your test validates this method of sampling mixtures rather than questioning it.

in research, almost nothing is homogenous. however, sampling of a whole can be done by taking many small, disparate pieces per sample.

 

[Purple-Days]

Crap something happened and I lost a long reply...

Yep, I know a little (not much) about research and statistics. Dad was a research pharmacologist and always tried to make me think like him (of course).

Maybe I can say it better this time.

The plant has parts of unequal value. Even on the small scale, of a bud, there is a wide variety of material. From stem material to the 'best' ripe trichromes. in between are the smallest leaves, calyxs, trichrome stalks, unripe trichromes and maybe some more stratification of components could be listed. All with different 'value'. It's like the pennies and nickels and dimes, you can mix and blend, but the parts are distinct, when the plant material is in a condition normally found in a users vape load.

And when you are measuring controls on a macroscopic level and measuring results on a micrgram scale you have a problem.

I think the coins distinctly show the problem with such a scenario. You can mix, but cannot homogenize this product as it is used in normal conditions.

So how do we overcome the objection?

Artificial Marijauna Substitue (AMS)? Sure. Two easy ways that I see.

A) The easy way. A blender, some weed and some distilled water. Puree the weed to a very fine particle size, then use papermaking tech to make weed paper. This might take the addition of fiber after the puree, to make it substantial enough to shred into weedlike macro-particles that were much the same consistency as ground bud material. I think a binder fiber would need to be added after the puree step, on the order of 5mm. Long fiber would not shred and grind so well (i'm guessing) and shorter would not hold together well (again guessing). Wanna get fancy for marketing to labs? Use a hemp fiber and market as such, otherwise I think a cotton binder fiber would be fine for our purposes. I think this substance could be considered homogenous throughout the (one) batch. And work well in a simple comparison testing. And loads are easily prepared, as identical, based on weight alone (precisely measured).

B) The other method I see is an extract / tincture that could be analyzed and quantified very precisely (in order that identical batches of the end product might be made later). This could be introduced to the proper blotter substrate and treated as above, but with a known amount of active ingredient from batch to batch. Again I see hemp fiber and marketing to labs as a possible idea, if anybody wants to run with it, this would be the best way...

Both these come closer to science than a simple grind and guess. IMO.

I see another reason to do it this way. Since GC has stated that he has budget restraints (# of vapes he can afford) and limited lab availablity it makes sense (to me) to do this with as few test runs as possible. Sure a large number of runs will give you a curve and you can work from that and draw conclusions. But a very homogenous substance to start with, would lower the number of tests required to weed out the aberrations. And I don't know what weed costs where you live, but blowing it through an analyzer (rather than your head) more times than needed seems wasteful. Granted sacrafices must be made.