Vaponic Herbal Vaporizer

[OO]

The Ubie? I've been thinking that is problably the best simplest portable if you want to vaporize any kind of concentrates but for herbs it needs extra care and technique while hitting to not get a side burn on the material.

What do you mean by "i don't use a test tube" ?

In the instructional post on the first page, it shows using a test tube as a heat exchanger. They might call it something else, but I've always called them test tubes.

I'm not sure if you're supposed to use the ubie conduction dominant style, but if so, then it is the same as what I use. I would recommend this post for further reading.

 

[vorrange]

In the instructional post on the first page, it shows using a test tube as a heat exchanger. They might call it something else, but I've always called them test tubes.

I'm not sure if you're supposed to use the ubie conduction dominant style, but if so, then it is the same as what I use. I would recommend this post for further reading.

I don't understand, so you use the vaponic with just the tube were you put the herbs, or with just the outer tube? And how is that different from using a Ubie?

And also, if you use a ubie how can you not use it without conduction being the dominant style? I don't own a Ubie but, you heat the glass where the herb is layed.. hence, conduction.

 

[VaporEyes]

I don't understand, so you use the vaponic with just the tube were you put the herbs, or with just the outer tube? And how is that different from using a Ubie?

And also, if you use a ubie how can you not use it without conduction being the dominant style? I don't own a Ubie but, you heat the glass where the herb is layed.. hence, conduction.

The vaponic should never be used with out it's outer tube. Doing such would defeat it's whole design.

The ubie can be used in a convection-like manner(although not very well). Requires some screens and trial and error but it is possible.

 

[vorrange]

The vaponic should never be used with out it's outer tube. Doing such would defeat it's whole design.

The ubie can be used in a convection-like manner(although not very well). Requires some screens and trial and error but it is possible.

I agree and understand what you said and that is not why i asked.. what i don't understand, is what OO is trying to say.

Namely, that you CAN use the Ubie as a conduction-based vaporization.. implying that it's possible and/or easier and more correct to use it as a convection-based vaporization process. And also, HOW he uses the Vaponic without some of it's parts and have a better experience than with the correctly assembled Vaponic.

 

[OO]

I don't understand, so you use the vaponic with just the tube were you put the herbs, or with just the outer tube? And how is that different from using a Ubie?

And also, if you use a ubie how can you not use it without conduction being the dominant style? I don't own a Ubie but, you heat the glass where the herb is layed.. hence, conduction.

I don't use a commercially available vape (it's not sold as a vape) for what I describe. Correct though, it would be similar to using a vapionic without the exterior tube, only the interior tube.

With the ubie, you can apply the flame just forward of where the material is, which changes the degree of conduction dominance. And to increase the effect, every subtle change matters (at least that is my observation).

I agree and understand what you said and that is not why i asked.. what i don't understand, is what OO is trying to say.

Namely, that you CAN use the Ubie as a conduction-based vaporization.. implying that it's possible and/or easier and more correct to use it as a convection-based vaporization process. And also, HOW he uses the Vaponic without some of it's parts and have a better experience than with the correctly assembled Vaponic.

It's not a matter of correctness, it's a matter of desired effects and willingness to overcome a longer learning curve.

The degree to which conduction dominates appears to be a critical factor in how greatly the effect is expressed.

 

[vorrange]

I don't use a commercially available vape (it's not sold as a vape) for what I describe. Correct though, it would be similar to using a vapionic without the exterior tube, only the interior tube.

With the ubie, you can apply the flame just forward of where the material is, which changes the degree of conduction dominance. And to increase the effect, every subtle change matters (at least that is my observation).



It's not a matter of correctness, it's a matter of desired effects and willingness to overcome a longer learning curve.

The degree to which conduction dominates appears to be a critical factor in how greatly the effect is expressed.

So, you have a glass tube, similar to the Vaponic inner tube, that you use in the same way as a Vaponic? But, won't this make you inhale the byproducts of lighter gas allowing for a not as good of a taste?

And about the Ubie, you can reduce conduction-dominance but you can't make it convection-dominant.. and it remains a more difficult vape to achieve this effect, especially because the glass will tend to become quite hot if you use it more as a convection than a conduction unit won't it?

It just seems a lot of hassle to deal with, just to make it work in a way it wasn't suppose to.

 

[OO]

So, you have a glass tube, similar to the Vaponic inner tube, that you use in the same way as a Vaponic? But, won't this make you inhale the byproducts of lighter gas allowing for a not as good of a taste?

It just seems a lot of hassle to deal with, just to make it work in a way it wasn't suppose to.

I don't use it as a vapionic, I apply heat directly to the glass that contacts the material.
There might be some byproducts making their way into the path, but not much. I definitely can't taste anything other than what is packed.

The hassle makes sense when you have gotten over the learning curve, but suffice it to say, it is an effect I have only duplicated to a mild extent with very similar vapes. That's how big of an impact these little differences make. I don't think the experience is for everyone, but it is notably different than any other experience I've had vaping-wise. Much closer to dabbing if you ask me.

 

[vorrange]

I fail to see the point in applying the heat directly to the tube where the herb lays since conduction is an inferior method of extraction IMO, and i still don't think it is identical to the Vaponic but to the Ubie instead.

The only advantage i concede to those who prefer conduction is that, because of conduction, a lot of thc is prematurely transformed into cbn, which induces the couch-lock effect.. but you can still extract a lot of sedatives if you increase vaping temps slowly until you reach the 400F threshold while using a mainly convection vaporizer.
The problem is that you lose flavour fast using conduction, which results in not assimilating healthy and tasty terpenes that are vaporized at lower temps.

 

[OO]

I fail to see the point in applying the heat directly to the tube where the herb lays since conduction is an inferior method of extraction IMO, and i still don't think it is identical to the Vaponic but to the Ubie instead.

The only advantage i concede to those who prefer conduction is that, because of conduction, a lot of thc is prematurely transformed into cbn, which induces the couch-lock effect.. but you can still extract a lot of sedatives if you increase vaping temps slowly until you reach the 400F threshold while using a mainly convection vaporizer.
The problem is that you lose flavour fast using conduction, which results in not assimilating healthy and tasty terpenes that are vaporized at lower temps.

With an opinion based upon a lack of experience you will never get to experience what I have.
I'm not going to try to convince you about the inferiority or superiority of conduction versus convection, you can go read what is written in the thread that pertains to that topic, as the two are different, yet you can never get purely one over the other, so take your distinctions and rationalize them.

As for the changes in content/ratio of active compounds, I've spoken to this point in another thread we are conversing in. I will say that until each technique has been thoroughly studied, I will not state as fact which compounds yield which effects, as I believe the effect is more dependent upon ratios, not as an absolute, but there hasn't been enough study yet to say either way.

You state quite a few things as fact, if you have proof to any of the things you have stated, please post it, as evidence is everything.

 

[vorrange]

With an opinion based upon a lack of experience you will never get to experience what I have.
I'm not going to try to convince you about the inferiority or superiority of conduction versus convection, you can go read what is written in the thread that pertains to that topic, as the two are different, yet you can never get purely one over the other, so take your distinctions and rationalize them.

As for the changes in content/ratio of active compounds, I've spoken to this point in another thread we are conversing in. I will say that until each technique has been thoroughly studied, I will not state as fact which compounds yield which effects, as I believe the effect is more dependent upon ratios, not as an absolute, but there hasn't been enough study yet to say either way.

You state quite a few things as fact, if you have proof to any of the things you have stated, please post it, as evidence is everything.

It's you that is trying to convince me.. i agree that it is dependent on ratios as well as strains but it's also true that conduction allows for a more couch-lock effect and premature flavour loss, which is why i prefer convection, and which is why i fail to see the advantage in your test tube vaporizer vs the Vaponic.

My opinions are based on facts and experience.. but i'd still like to know what exactly is that you need proof off.

 

[OO]

It's you that is trying to convince me.. i agree that it is dependent on ratios as well as strains but it's also true that conduction allows for a more couch-lock effect and premature flavour loss, which is why i prefer convection, and which is why i fail to see the advantage in your test tube vaporizer vs the Vaponic.

My opinions are based on facts and experience.. but i'd still like to know what exactly is that you need proof off.

I'm not the one making claims with regards to profile changes, that would be you doing that.

All I am claiming is that the effects are different, I don't have any way to prove that other than having you learn my technique, which is something I have been trying to teach to you, though I am becoming somewhat reluctant.

It seems you would not be interested in the effects anyways, though I don't think 'couch lock' is the appropriate term.

If it is fact as you claim, you should be able to find a source which documents it, otherwise it is a claim which has no acceptance. Anecdotal evidence is still evidence, but is much harder to quantify, especially without all the factors being taken into consideration.

As for what I want proof of, lets start with the conversion of THC to CBN, and then maybe even include the health effects of terpenes.

 

[vorrange]

Well, what do you consider a change in the amount of cannabinoids? This is what happens in pyrolysis, first proof of change in the profile.

I'm reluctant to see the advantages of the technique because of the reasons i said above that i prefer longer tastier sessions, i will definitly try it once i get the Vaponic.

Health effects of terpenes: http://cannabishealthnewsmagazine.com/news/1238/importance-of-terpenes/

Cbn To THC: http://webpages.charter.net/lenny49684/volcano.pdf table on page 13 and first lines of page 15.

 

[OO]

Well, what do you consider a change in the amount of cannabinoids? This is what happens in pyrolysis, first proof of change in the profile.

I'm reluctant to see the advantages of the technique because of the reasons i said above that i prefer longer tastier sessions, i will definitly try it once i get the Vaponic.

Health effects of terpenes: http://cannabishealthnewsmagazine.com/news/1238/importance-of-terpenes/

Cbn To THC: http://webpages.charter.net/lenny49684/volcano.pdf table on page 13 and first lines of page 15.

Both samples (from the tables you mentioned) in the volcano study that you mentioned were combusted, did you miss that bit? Also the volcano study has a surprisingly large number of additional implications, including that combustion is better at extracting cannabinoids than vaporization using a volcano. I think a thorough read of that study would do you well.

On the terpenes page, many claims are made, and a source cited, but the source does not exist.

 

[vorrange]

Both samples (from the tables you mentioned) in the volcano study that you mentioned were combusted, did you miss that bit? Also the volcano study has a surprisingly large number of additional implications, including that combustion is better at extracting cannabinoids than vaporization using a volcano. I think a thorough read of that study would do you well.

On the terpenes page, many claims are made, and a source cited, but the source does not exist.

I'm not gonna research for you.. i gave you sources for my claims, i'm not about to make a report about it. If you feel it's insuficient, then by all means proceed the research as you please.
The implications mentioned in the study arise from the fact that more research is needed, so, we can keep saying "there are additional implications" but that won't get us closer to a conclusion.


The combustion was found to be a better extraction method because they measured the thc content by hooking it to a tube which sucked ALL the air. This bit alone will explain the higher efficiency. I suggest you read a little better as well.

Edit: i also can't understand why you said both samples were combusted.. unless you were looking at a different table, i see: a) crude cannabis b) volcano vapor and c) combusted smoke.

 

[OO]

I'm not gonna research for you.. i gave you sources for my claims, i'm not about to make a report about it. If you feel it's insuficient, then by all means proceed the research as you please.


The combustion was found to be a better extraction method because they measured the thc content by hooking it to a tube which sucked ALL the air. This bit alone will explain the higher efficiency. I suggest you read a little better as well.

I wouldn't make claims without sources, you don't want to mislead people, and my comment about a good read was not meant in the way it was taken, hence the lack of "better" in my comment, but it is important to refer to the correct tables to avoid wasting the time of others, and also to avoid looking illiterate, but that's besides the point.
This is what you should have quoted.

For CBN, there was no significant change under vaporization. In
contrast, the level of CBN was twice as high in all three combusted samples,
with little variance. This result may be explained by the oxidation
of THC under heat (El Sohly 2002). However, it should be noted that
the amounts of CBN observed were still quite low (0.19%), two orders
of magnitude less than the loss of THC observed under combustion.

Still not pyrolysis, still not decarboxylation, but interesting nonetheless.

I found a link to the source they cited, but unfortunately they did not mention anything relevant in that text, you can find it here. A great read, but contained no information on vaporization, or CBN. I'm at a loss as to why they cited it.
I'm not sure why you think it is different for the combustion versus the vaporization scenarios, as they used similar methodology in both cases correct? Maybe you understand something I don't?

 

[vorrange]

I wouldn't make claims without sources, you don't want to mislead people, and my comment about a good read was not meant in the way it was taken, hence the lack of "better" in my comment, but it is important to refer to the correct tables to avoid wasting the time of others, and also to avoid looking illiterate, but that's besides the point.
This is what you should have quoted.

Still not pyrolysis, still not decarboxylation, but interesting nonetheless.

I found a link to the source they cited, but unfortunately they did not mention anything relevant in that text, you can find it here. A great read, but contained no information on vaporization, or CBN. I'm at a loss as to why they cited it.
I'm not sure why you think it is different for the combustion versus the vaporization scenarios, as they used similar methodology in both cases correct? Maybe you understand something I don't?

I said first lines of page 15 of the article (not the document), which is exactly what you quoted.

And if you analyse the table in page 13, you can see that cbn doubles from 0,10 to 0,19 from the crude sample to the combusted sample. IN vaporization it stays the same or it lowers a lot.

One other thing is that they vaporize until it's greenish-brown which is not entirely vaped, which could explain the less cannabinoids than expected.

The method is similar but with combustion they used a pipe and directed the smoke imediatly to the solvent, at the rate of extraction and when you use it regularly, there is a lot of sidestream smoke, which can account for losses up to 50%.

Add this to the fact that with the volcano they extracted to the bag, and only after blowing the bag did they put it in the solvent which will hinder efficiency since there will be thc condensation in the bag walls, and to the 20-30% of losses by pyrolysis.. you are looking at less than 40% in most cases, if you combust.

 

[OO]

I said first lines of page 15 of the article (not the document), which is exactly what you quoted.

And if you analyse the table in page 13, you can see that cbn doubles from 0,10 to 0,19 from the crude sample to the combusted sample. IN vaporization it stays the same or it lowers a lot.

One other thing is that they vaporize until it's greenish-brown which is not entirely vaped, which could explain the less cannabinoids than expected.

The method is similar but with combustion they used a pipe and directed the smoke imediatly to the solvent, at the rate of extraction and when you use it regularly, there is a lot of sidestream smoke, which can account for losses up to 50%.

Add this to the fact that with the volcano they extracted to the bag, and only after blowing the bag did they put it in the solvent which will hinder efficiency since there will be thc condensation in the bag walls, and to the 20-30% of losses by pyrolysis.. you are looking at less than 40% in most cases, if you combust.

I apologize then for misreading, it was my own fault for not finding what you mentioned.
I will look up the things you've mentioned in this post.

Thank you for that article.

 

[vorrange]

I apologize then for misreading, it was my own fault for not finding what you mentioned.
I will look up the things you've mentioned in this post.

Thank you for that article.

No problem, i don't know if you already know this, most likely you do but, i search articles by searching their name and add "pdf" and i look for the entrances with [pdf] at the start and i usually find the article in question.

And i also have a few dozen articles on cannabis so, feel free to pm me if you are looking for some subject in particular, although everything i have is available to the regular internet user.

 

[OO]

No problem, i don't know if you already know this, most likely you do but, i search articles by searching their name and add "pdf" and i look for the entrances with [pdf] at the start and i usually find the article in question.

And i also have a few dozen articles on cannabis so, feel free to pm me if you are looking for some subject in particular, although everything i have is available to the regular internet user.

Knowledge is power!

 

[justcametomind]

Just to go back in topic (ok I can't be taken seriously with this avatar), where did you get the Vaponic vorrange?

 

[vorrange]

Just to go back in topic (ok I can't be taken seriously with this avatar), where did you get the Vaponic vorrange?

Lacentralevapeur.. but you can find it in vaposhop and verdampftnochmal as well. Since the vaponic its spanish is rather easy to find it in the EU.

 

[VaporEyes]

Lacentralevapeur.. but you can find it in vaposhop and verdampftnochmal as well. Since the vaponic its spanish is rather easy to find it in the EU.

www.planetvape.ca has them as well(currently out-of-stock).

 

[vorrange]

The Vaponic arrived this friday!

The only thing i would change at this point is something to keep the plastic cover from sliding of the tube. hehehe.

It has already fallen from my lap to the wood flor, heard a fast "clink clink clink" aaaand it didn't break.. it was just the inner tube bumping into the outer tube. Accidental durability test was passed with flying colours.

Handling it it's quite easy, the tube does not get hot at all after the red line and you can see the colour of the herbs at all times, which helps to gauge the extraction.

I use the rubber cap to use as a tube holder when i want to stir for the last couple of hits. If i'm in a place where it's not safe to do this, then i secure the tube in the cap and slide it inside the marker cover while i stir and etc.

I was close to combust a few times where the herbs where left pretty pretty black, which happened when i either heated the glass too much and it went black immediately by conduction or the herb wasn't instantly black but the glass was hotter than it was supposed to and when the air started going through the herbs and blackened it a little too much.
Nevertheless, i found that it's quite simple to master the temperature and more specifically, how and how long to heat the tube, to prevent combustion and also to prevent premature and uneven extractions due to too much lighter power without inhaling inbetween.

I like it.. it's more pratical in terms of handling than the gn0me, although the gn0me has a slight flavour margin because of the conduction in the bowl tube but that is more apparent as you go through the herbs.. the first hits are as tasty as the gn0me because it's still all glass. In theory, the gn0me still wins but the different is not apparent IMO.

It's great to have in your pocket, and the herbs don't need stirring. You just need to put it in the bowl and when it gets brown i open it, crush it until it has a "grinded consistency" and vape the last remains.

The glass is durable although it's thin, which ends up being a good thing since it won't survive many falls despite the thickness and this way you have a much faster process altogether.

TL; DR: Great unit, small, tasty and pratical. Remember!, in glass vaporizers we all know that with great taste, comes great responsibility. It has a learning curve but it's fast to master.
Highly Recommended!

 

[PlanetHaze]

Great to hear you are enjoying your Vaponic vorrange, thanks for your great review.

Just to go back in topic (ok I can't be taken seriously with this avatar), where did you get the Vaponic vorrange?

www.planetvape.ca has them as well(currently out-of-stock).

We have new Vaponic stock and we are happy to announce that we are the first to have the newest Vaponics with a new extract screen included in the kit as well as an updated user manual with a section on how to use the new extract screen. https://www.planetvape.ca/vaponic.html

Peace and Love,
PV

edit: added direct link

 

[Vapodudule]

Glad to hear that . Link?