<VOTE>THC percentage between Combustion and Vaporization?

[robosk8]

Hey guys, I 've been using a weed pen which has a coil to burning marijuana before. feeling almost same to smoking a joint. I just ordered a vaporizer wish will get it soon.

I never tried a vaporizer before. Any one can tell me how much THC percentage between combustion and vaporization? which way get higher?

 

[psycro]

Vaporization is more effective regarding the extraction of the cannabinoids as is combustion. However if u are used to the by-products of combustion the high from vaporization will probably not satisfy you in the beginning. The only way to adjust your brain is to completely stop combustion. After couple weeks you will probably feel the more clearer and more pure effect of vaporization.

Note that the vaporization high can be different depending on the vaporization temperature. In my experience the high achieved with a conduction vape and higher temperatures is closest to the combustion high, however the immediate head rush is usually not present (because no oxygen deprivation of the brain) and u will feel the high slowly creeping up. Of course this also depends on the strain.

 

[robosk8]

Vaporization is more effective regarding the extraction of the cannabinoids as is combustion. However if u are used to the by-products of combustion the high from vaporization will probably not satisfy you in the beginning. The only way to adjust your brain is to completely stop combustion. After couple weeks you will probably feel the more clearer and more pure effect of vaporization.

Note that the vaporization high can be different depending on the vaporization temperature. In my experience the high achieved with a conduction vape and higher temperatures is closest to the combustion high, however the immediate head rush is usually not present (because no oxygen deprivation of the brain) and u will feel the high slowly creeping up. Of course this also depends on the strain.

Wow.That's detailed and great reply.
Vaporization is more high and health.
Wish to get vaping soon lol.

 

[Jared]

I gotta disagree with psycro (and the tons of other people who hold this opinion). I went cold turkey from ripping bongs and smoking blunts to solely using a vaporizer basically after the first time I used one that actually worked like a good vaporizer should. Didn't miss any of the combustion byproducts at all when I felt like I was really getting a nice thick hit of vapor. Some of the portable units IMO will never get you as high as a joint or bong or pipe can, but there are a lot of plugin units that IMO get you MUCH higher, byproducts or no byproducts.

 

[max]

Some of the portable units IMO will never get you as high as a joint or bong or pipe can, but there are a lot of plugin units that IMO get you MUCH higher, byproducts or no byproducts.

It's only your perception that smoking gets you higher than "some of the portable units" because you're getting a much larger dose in a much shorter period of time. It's no different than saying that whisky gets you more drunk than beer, when it's simply because you can get more alcohol into your system quicker. Portables or plug-ins (how they get their power doesn't matter) that have small bowls and narrow vapor paths require more hits and more time to deliver the same amount of vapor vs. a big hitter. I've been experiencing this difference on an almost daily basis for the last ten years, since my preference is to use two vapes- a sipper and a gulper. It all comes down to how much vapor a particular model can deliver at once. You get the same amount of vapor from a sipper vape, and the same amount of cannabinoids. It just takes longer and therefore you don't get the same impact. This holds true for any drug- get a lot more in your system at once, and the drug will be perceived to be stronger, vs. stretching the same dose out over a longer period of time. As for the effect of vapor vs. smoke, due to the extra (non cannabis) compounds you get with smoke, that's a different story completely.

Any one can tell me how much THC percentage between combustion and vaporization?

Nobody can give you concrete numbers (at least not yet), but any time you smoke you burn up a percentage of the active compounds (with no benefit) by incinerating them. You also get vapor every time you combust, since the herb vaporizes from the heat before it combusts. In overwhelming numbers, people report saving herb with vaping, vs. smoking, so yes, it's a more efficient extraction method.

 

[vapebuddy13]

It's only your perception that smoking gets you higher than "some of the portable units" because you're getting a much larger dose in a much shorter period of time. It's no different than saying that whisky gets you more drunk than beer, when it's simply because you can get more alcohol into your system quicker. Portables or plug-ins (how they get their power doesn't matter) that have small bowls and narrow vapor paths require more hits and more time to deliver the same amount of vapor vs. a big hitter. I've been experiencing this difference on an almost daily basis for the last ten years, since my preference is to use two vapes- a sipper and a gulper. It all comes down to how much vapor a particular model can deliver at once. You get the same amount of vapor from a sipper vape, and the same amount of cannabinoids. It just takes longer and therefore you don't get the same impact. This holds true for any drug- get a lot more in your system at once, and the drug will be perceived to be stronger, vs. stretching the same dose out over a longer period of time. As for the effect of vapor vs. smoke, due to the extra (non cannabis) compounds you get with smoke, that's a different story completely.

A+ response, great analogy

 

[Joel W.]

Second page and The third page, 4th paragraph (page9 on top) has some info here. Can't cut n paist from phone. Plus charts!


http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/jcantgieringervapor.pdf

May or may not be relevant. Sorry.

 

[Jared]

Gonna disagree again here. I don't think it's just perception. I could sit with a magic flight launch box or one of the other weak portable units for 3 hours and still not be as high as I am from an LSV or Herbalizer in 10 minutes. I'd bet $10 if we could do some kind of scientific testing a plugin unit would be infinitely more efficient at extracting cannabinoids than most portables.

 

[RUDE BOY]

I could sit with a magic flight launch box or one of the other weak portable units

The Magic flight although no longer in regular rotation for me is only as Weak as the users knowledge and ability with it.

I can actually pull launch box hits that rival my EV2 and Daisy since it was my main driver for a couple of years. Lackluster performance with the mflb is mostly attributed user error or lack of time spent understanding how to get the most out of it in my experience.

 

[Rush520]

This isn't really about portable vs plug in, this is combustion vs vaporization.

Vaporization is far more efficient and healthy, and for many long time combusters, it does take time to feel the true effects of vaporization. If I recall correctly, less than 15% of marijuana smoke is the good stuff and the rest is combustion byproduct.

The highs tend to be different as well. The most accurate way to describe a vape high is a clear high. I also converted using an Arizer Extreme-Q. I cannot say if I had tried using an MFLB to convert that I would have been satisfied. Stick with vaporization for a little bit and you'll see you may never want to combust again.

 

[Jared]

It may not be about portable vs plugin but the OP from what I can gather is wanting whatever is going to produce the most THC or strongest effects.

When people are used to smoking and then use a weak portable vaporizer, they assume that vapor can't get them high and that vaporizing isn't for them. That is why I'm trying to stress how much more powerful, and comparable to combustion, a plugin can be compared to a portable.

 

[Rush520]

That's fine but the topic was heading in the portable/plug direction. There have also been many a combuster who fell in love with vaping via an MFLB, Solo, Pax and others. Regardless of vaporizer it is important to stick with vaporization for a while and not dismiss it right off the bat.

@robosk8 out of curiosity, what vaporizer did you purchase?

 

[lwien]

This isn't really about portable vs plug in, this is combustion vs vaporization.

I agree. For those that want to get into a portable versus plug-in discussion, I suggest ya pay a visit here>>> http://fuckcombustion.com/threads/are-desktop-vapes-in-decline.17966/

Lackluster performance with the mflb is mostly attributed user error or lack of time spent understanding how to get the most out of it in my experience.

TOTALLY agree with this. My MFLB is still in my current rotation and because of it's SUPER convenient use as a "one-hit-and-quit" type vaporizer, I primarily use it for maintenance hits but I sure as hell wouldn't categorize it as "weak".

 

[Joel W.]

Am I reading that chart correctly on 7th page (13 p) of my link where it says more THC in combustion than volcano?

Edit. It's the tars I don't want.

 

[Rush520]

Am I reading that chart correctly on 7th page (13 p) of my link where it says more THC in combustion than volcano?

Edit. It's the tars I don't want.

Not looking at the chart, but I can say that there's no way that's possible. If you don't want tar, don't combust lol

 

[Joel W.]

Ok i guess

 

[Rush520]

Interesting

 

[Nocab]

Ok i guess

Unfortunately the findings are flawed. From page 8:

"Theoretically, the vaporizer might have been expected to realize a
higher THC delivery efficiency than combustion, since it should have
avoided loss of THC by pyrolysis. That this was not observed indicates
that there were other inefficiencies in the vaporization process. The
most likely explanation would seem to be incomplete vaporization, due
to lack of uniform thorough heating and ventilation of the sample. It is
certainly possible that higher efficiencies might have been achieved by
stirring the sample and drawing another balloon from the vaporizer, as
recommended by the manufacturer."

They're saying that if they would have used the Volcano according to the manufacture's instructions, the results would have been different. No kidding. As anyone can attest to, using a vaporizer takes some time to figure out the best delivery method. Some doods in a lab using a Volcano three times does not make for a good data to go on.


But I digress, it's pretty well established that when combusting material, some of the cannabinoids are destroyed in the process. Vaporaization allows for extraction of many of those cannabinoids without destroying them. The key is to start with low temperatures and work your way up. This way you're extracting the whole spectrum of cannabinoids. And ABV that you're left with can be used for all sorts of edibles, extracting even MORE cannabinoids still.

Vaporizing is a complete win/win when it comes to extracting the most cannabinoids versus combusting.

 

[Joel W.]

Thanks for the info, I'm at work and can't screw off too much more today. Lol

Also, it does not matter either way to me, found that link last night. i have not even read it completely or voted.

I'm just glad I was reading it right

 

[TboneToker]

I gotta disagree with psycro (and the tons of other people who hold this opinion). I went cold turkey from ripping bongs and smoking blunts to solely using a vaporizer basically after the first time I used one that actually worked like a good vaporizer should. Didn't miss any of the combustion byproducts at all when I felt like I was really getting a nice thick hit of vapor. Some of the portable units IMO will never get you as high as a joint or bong or pipe can, but there are a lot of plugin units that IMO get you MUCH higher, byproducts or no byproducts.

I would say that the arizer solo is actually quite good as a portable for effectiveness!