The Magic-Flight Box
- Thread starter magicflight
- Start date
KidFated.
Unknown Member
Glad you finally caved and got it. Enjoy it, I miss mine. Maybe grab a UD long 14mm GonG for a mouthpiece if you don't wanna use a whip?
New_World
Cuck Fombustion
haha i did....i caved. lol
I think they are a great company.
what happened to your orbiter?
where is a good place to buy a long 14mm GonG mouthpiece?
caliwisp
Cali Dreamin'
Hi Guys,
Just stumbled upon this bit of research done with the MLFB. Massachusetts Cannabis Lab (MCR) started out with 100 mg of cannabis in a MLFB, tested the cannabinoids, then had a person take a 10-sec slow draw and measured the remaining THC and CBN in the sample. The person continued taking draws (dunno if it was the same person!) until all THC was mostly gone, or after 30 10-second slow draws. It was determined that each hit gave 0.3 mg of THC per draw. The before vaping and after vaping cannabinoid profile pie chart is also shown, which is interesting.
http://www.medicaljane.com/2014/07/...ow-to-dose-yourself-when-vaporizing-cannabis/
The results will be different with various vaporizers but this is a start!
Just stumbled upon this bit of research done with the MLFB. Massachusetts Cannabis Lab (MCR) started out with 100 mg of cannabis in a MLFB, tested the cannabinoids, then had a person take a 10-sec slow draw and measured the remaining THC and CBN in the sample. The person continued taking draws (dunno if it was the same person!) until all THC was mostly gone, or after 30 10-second slow draws. It was determined that each hit gave 0.3 mg of THC per draw. The before vaping and after vaping cannabinoid profile pie chart is also shown, which is interesting.
http://www.medicaljane.com/2014/07/...ow-to-dose-yourself-when-vaporizing-cannabis/
The results will be different with various vaporizers but this is a start!
Last edited:
KidFated.
Unknown Member
Underdogvapes.com
OF
Well-Known Member
Interesting test, thanks for the pointer.
However, that's not exactly how it works. To do this you need take a sample, hit it and analyze what's left. Then take a second sample, take two tokes and analyze that one. Then take a third...... Each test needs to dissolve the remaining THC in a solvent (Methyl Alcohol I think?) and pump that through the column. Every test destroys the sample.
Overall this says they extracted 12mg in 40 hits (at .3 per) and left 25% of the total (an additional 4mg behind. These numbers fit for the typical 16% weed and 'moderately potent' ABV we generally discuss.
By weight I find that a load loses about 1/3 of the mass (33%), I think about half water and half good stuff?
OF
OF
Well-Known Member
No doubt. And, while a good effort, IMO poorly done. Which is unfortunate. Real science depends on real numbers. Experimental 'evidence' only counts when it can be independently confirmed and reproduced.
Hopefully, they will tighten that part up a bit as the testing goes forward. At one point the DEA had pot grown for research use, I've even 'tested a left over' official Government joint many years ago, I was told it came in a tin can full of pre rolled doobs, looked like a cigarette almost. It was great for the day, today's Top Shelf bud would put it to shame. The old time pot studies were based on this 'standardized Marijuana', to make this interesting study valid across vape makes I think that's needed here?
Thanks again.
OF
Much as I love the LB, it was a poor choice for this study. They gloss over it here:
As @OF points out, real science must be reproducible. You can't reproduce hits on the LB with the consistency needed to make this test anything more than interesting. I do think it points in the right direction, but I hope they get their act together because the last thing we need is this sort of paper being presented as genuine scientific research. It's what I'd expect from a solid B student in senior high school.
OF
Well-Known Member
Spot on, a good start, hopefully it'll grow into something useful and informative. The not so useful and misleading 'research' we already got.........
Well put, Brother Pak.
A cool development, but it leaves a guy craving more. Where else have we seen that????
OF
nopartofme
Over the falls, in a barrel
Does anyone else ever "Ride the PA": start at the lowest setting, maintain a light steady draw and keep your finger on the Power Dial, exploring different temperature levels in the space of a single long inhale…?
Or how about setting it a little higher than you're used to, taking shortish draws that start slow and end fast, with short breaks in between wherein you keep the power on and tap the box brusquely so that the herb bounces just-so, staving off over-/uneven cooking and filling the box with a little puff of vapor to be drawn into your mouth as if from a cigar to begin your next inhalation?
After almost two years and after two other vape purchases, the box remains a joy to use—
Or how about setting it a little higher than you're used to, taking shortish draws that start slow and end fast, with short breaks in between wherein you keep the power on and tap the box brusquely so that the herb bounces just-so, staving off over-/uneven cooking and filling the box with a little puff of vapor to be drawn into your mouth as if from a cigar to begin your next inhalation?
After almost two years and after two other vape purchases, the box remains a joy to use—
Quetzalcoatl
DEADY GUERRERO/DIRT COBAIN/GEORGE KUSH
Yup, with a very fine grind I like to vape everything at a really low temperature, somewhere between "I can taste it but see nothing" and "I barely barely exhaled anything visible after a very long draw", terps and very small amounts of cannabinoids. It's an interesting experience, starts out very fragrant and you end up deceptively high. Sometimes I'll do that for 2x 2/3-full trenches just to savor the taste and high. The stuff gets re-vaped later in the LB at a slightly higher temperature and/or in the Solo. The taste is much lighter and more flavorful than level 2 on my Solo. Level 1 is something dumb like 165f or something... useless basically.
This was not our paper, but Medical Jane write-up of it. Here's a link to our original write-up:@mcrlabs you say in your paper minnesota doesn't allow smoked cannabis. We can't even have plant matter to vaporize. Strictly concentrates, might mislead some readers.
http://mcrlabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/White-Paper-Vape-Ex.pdf
KidFated.
Unknown Member
Word!
Not to put down Medical Jane, they did a fantastic job.
OF
Well-Known Member
Yes, exactly so. If you read carefully you'll note I'm correcting the OP?
Glad to have the confirmation I still know how HPLC works, it's been a long time........
Interesting line from your White Paper:
"MCR Labs found that the active cannabinoids were
consumed after 40 draws, at a rate of 0.3 mg of
THC per draw."
This seems to confirm the 'full vaping removes all the available THC' argument over the competitive 'vaping only removes about 50%' school?
OF
OF
Well-Known Member
Exactly, you had the right idea of how it was done. Not after every hit, but after 5, 10, 15, etc. hits. Otherwise we'd still be at the lab
What was very interesting indeed was the linearity of the results (r^2 = 0.97). If you stopped halfway, you consumed about half of the THC.
More to the point, starting with say a gram, breaking it into 10 tenths. Measuring one to see how much is there at the start (which destroys that sample). Taking number 2, hitting it 5 times then testing it to see how much less is left (again destroying it). Then to the third for 10 hits and so on (although it seems like the first few were at one hit spacings?). In the end you need 9 samples by that schedule (every 5), 8 of which are hit an average 20 times. 160 uniform hits? No small task for sure. In the end half the THC ends up in the HPLC column, the other half in experimenters........
Some are called on to sacrifice for science. A truly noble calling. Right up there with Newton not eating the apple.
I guess I don't share your interest there, I see the linear nature as a confirmation of the laws of Physics. The same energy input is giving the same Moles of goodness evaporating. Or more accurately mili (or even micro) Moles I guess, we're not greedy.
BTW, for even more fun, bring it out to this coast. Dispensaries out here don't offer 12% THC bud, unless there's a bunch of CBDs.........
Keep up the good work.
OF
Thanks for the kind words! That's what we did, we ground up a couple grams, took a couple samples for a t=0 analysis, aliquoted the rest into 100 mg portions, and did just what you said.
We sacrificed THC in the name of science... we think of it as a sacrifice to help everyone who vapes... like a psychedelic lab rat.
OF
Well-Known Member
Cool.
I'm a bit uncomfortable with the use of "aliquot" here, to quibble a bit. When I went to school we'd call them samples since each is destroyed in the experiment. Aliquot is a part of the sample (and sometimes returned, as in Radiation counting). The key being that the sample (or at least a useful part of it) remains to back up the data. I agree "aliquot" is a fun term and all, but don't agree it's the best to use?
While it's still true, "if it's not in your notebook it never happened", from a peer review POV (an essential component of science) this invites 'give me the stuff, I wanna test it myself'. A minor point I agree, but at some levels a key one?
Still in support of the effort of course. And also suggest another unsung hero here is the port Tech that had to police up the lab afterward. You know the guy with the bulging shirt pocket and big grin on the way home?
Have you given any thought to using a fixture to standardize your hits?
OF
Quibble away!
We do have a part of that sample remaining for future confirmation, and we divided the same sample into roughly equal parts. I would not call these simply samples because they were measured to be roughly equal and were taken from a sample that was made to be more or less homogeneous by grinding. The definition of aliquot is:
"a portion of a larger whole, especially a sample taken for chemical analysis or other treatment."
In my school and work experience (graduate level chemistry, then pharmaceuticals) aliquot was exactly the right word to use for what we did. I did say that we aliquoted 'the rest' which was inaccurate, since we left some the initial sample for the future.
About standardization: Our aim was to test a genuine user experience and see what the numbers show. In the end, we thought data from user experience is more useful to the community than from a lab-controlled one, since the data produced in this way is more representative of what users will see.
A comparison of several user - drawn timepoints will expose the inherent variation in user draws. A fixture may also help tease out other potentially important variables. When we have time and a budget for it, we can certainly look into perfecting the experiments. This was a start and we are not claiming perfection.
Welcome to FC! I hope you stick around because we need all the help we can get with the science behind our vapour.
My criticism was in your choice of devices, since users will differ in their use of the MFLB, even from hit to hit. Could you shed some light on the reasons behind your choice? Not that I think it invalidates your work, since I value the fact that you did this study regardless of the equipment. I certainly encourage more work along these lines. We also have a thread going on the chemical reaction occurring during vapourization that I hope you'll contribute to.
OF
Well-Known Member
Quibbling is fine, as long as it serves a purpose WRT clearer communication?
I'm basically a Materials kinda guy here myself, I guess. Or was, when they paid me..... So I see this as a set of samples of uniform (hopefully) material. Each sample got different processing and was then tested. New details say an aliquot of each sample was taken but up to that point they were specimens or samples. I'm a little concerned about things like "measured to be roughly equal and were taken from a sample that was made to be more or less homogeneous by grinding", although data fit seems to say the "roughly" was corrected for? Probably not as important in more subjective testing, but not the sort of data I'm used to seeing. Perhaps why I don't find the uniform dose/hit at all strange?
In fact, it's just that fit that makes your experiment valid. It is your 'proof' your measurement is accurate. That's how science works.
I like the "test a genuine user experience and see what the numbers show" approach but as yet don't see that. I'll no doubt catch on as the program progresses.
I'm not sure I agree about it being all that useful a guideline of "what users will see". Our collective experience here is that no such animal exists. We have a fellow at a gram a month and another at seven grams a blunt. Sippers and cloud chasers. Flavor freaks and the 'crank it up, let the WT fix it' guys. Guys that kill a trench in their LB in a few heroic hits, and others (like you it seems?) who go 10 or 20 times that. Clearly all LB users aren't getting .3 mg/hit. I suggest to be more useful there should first be a standard user defined. A way for the reader to calibrate things? Without this, it is of course impossible to reproduce your experiments......unless you guys are volunteering to a long and not too memorable road trip of course. At least not fully. Again, probably a difference of concepts. You're applied research and I'm pure I think? You're looking to answer a pre defined question, I'm looking for new understanding of the area? How cool is that?
Fun stuff. I'd probably have started out standardizing the user (that is hit volume, rate and timing) and then using some temperature controlled vape (like Solo). I think that the demonstrated uniformity of the Volcano is a very important factor in earlier testing from a lot of standpoints. The LB is awfully subject to user variation, one of it's great strengths, of course, but not what one looks for in a scientific instrument.
Again, different goals perhaps?
Thanks and continued best wishes.
OF