Theres two windows in the year where I will do that kind of stuff, and this is one of them. Otherwise it is either too damn hot, or too damn cold......It's about freaking time. Jeez....
New studies find carcinogens in vg and pg at high temps, even in tootle puffers
- Thread starter mikepetro
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Nothing really, tried two experiments, still not getting stable readings once I inject the vapor, the readings just steadily climb until they are eventually over-range. Perplexed I am, but I have more ideas to try.
It just dawned on me. I am sucking the vapor into a syringe to measure the size of the draw, 55ml, trying to time it for aprox 3 seconds.
Perhaps the suction (ie flowrate) it greatly different using the syringe than a natural draw, therefore getting a more concentrated sample. Maybe the meter is telling me the truth?
I need to play with a "Mouth to Container" draw and see what happens.
Perhaps the suction (ie flowrate) it greatly different using the syringe than a natural draw, therefore getting a more concentrated sample. Maybe the meter is telling me the truth?
I need to play with a "Mouth to Container" draw and see what happens.
And before the "big mouth" jokes start (yes, I have one), I know the size of a mouth draw differs from person to person, the 55ml draw volume was part of a standard that Kurt employed. I would imagine he also controlled the flowrate as well, which I cant do very well by hand with a syringe.
If you could use the syringe and draw that 55ml over a three second time period, consistently, that might better simulate a real draw rate and "control" volume simultaneously. Maybe some kind of actuator...control circuit...Rube Goldberg setup might do the trick.
The big question is, of course, is whether or not the draw rate is the culprit. A lot of work if it isn't.
The big question is, of course, is whether or not the draw rate is the culprit. A lot of work if it isn't.
The challenge with an actuator on the syringe is that the syringe resistance, ie how hard it is pull the plunger, varies from one to another. I would abandon the syringe and just use an air cylinder with the appropriate volume, and an airflow restrictor to time the actuation of the cylinder.
I.e. put this on the airline that actuates the cylinder. Adjust for a 3 second full stroke.
Double acting air cylinder:
Last edited:
UPDATE:
Been struggling with this, tried tiny Clinton puffs, tried a number of things, most resulted in the instrument going out of range.
I have finally figured out how to get a stable measurement within the range of the instrument. But the math doesnt correlate to Dr Kurt's at all, not even close. So, for the time being I am ignoring Dr Kurts puff and tidal volume size and just doing volumes that register within the rang of the meter. I figure that for my purposes here, ie to correlate temp to formaldehyde, then as long I can get repeatable results, then I can vary temps and see if the results increase or not.
Right now a 10ml puff in a 500ml tidal volume is giving me readings that stabilize at 0.8ppm or less. At least I am stabilizing within the range of the instrument.
At the moment I am not getting repeatable results. I feel pretty confident it is my sampling technique though. Hitting the fire button a split second before or after I start drawing the 10ml puff is making a difference I think. My human two hands are not that precise yet. I am working on perfecting that sample technique, or maybe automating it. Once I can get repeatable results at a given temp, then I will start playing with increasing temp to see if the values change. Even if my scale is different than Dr Kurts, it will still tell us something.
Then I will go back through the math and see if I am making a mistake somehow that puts me in such a different range that Dr Kurt was getting.
Anyway, my silence doesnt mean I have given up, I just have not been seeing a lot of success until I changed my approach.
Been struggling with this, tried tiny Clinton puffs, tried a number of things, most resulted in the instrument going out of range.
I have finally figured out how to get a stable measurement within the range of the instrument. But the math doesnt correlate to Dr Kurt's at all, not even close. So, for the time being I am ignoring Dr Kurts puff and tidal volume size and just doing volumes that register within the rang of the meter. I figure that for my purposes here, ie to correlate temp to formaldehyde, then as long I can get repeatable results, then I can vary temps and see if the results increase or not.
Right now a 10ml puff in a 500ml tidal volume is giving me readings that stabilize at 0.8ppm or less. At least I am stabilizing within the range of the instrument.
At the moment I am not getting repeatable results. I feel pretty confident it is my sampling technique though. Hitting the fire button a split second before or after I start drawing the 10ml puff is making a difference I think. My human two hands are not that precise yet. I am working on perfecting that sample technique, or maybe automating it. Once I can get repeatable results at a given temp, then I will start playing with increasing temp to see if the values change. Even if my scale is different than Dr Kurts, it will still tell us something.
Then I will go back through the math and see if I am making a mistake somehow that puts me in such a different range that Dr Kurt was getting.
Anyway, my silence doesnt mean I have given up, I just have not been seeing a lot of success until I changed my approach.
Last edited:
I am getting hope, I just took 3 samples of the same atty/temp/juice.
0.79
0.74
0.59
For an avg of 0.706
I can increase statistical accuracy by taking more samples, say 5-7.
I am getting closer.........
0.79
0.74
0.59
For an avg of 0.706
I can increase statistical accuracy by taking more samples, say 5-7.
I am getting closer.........
Upon reflection, all three of my measurements may have in fact been identical. Identical in terms of micrograms of formaldehyde per ml of juice consumed.
Now I need to equate the ppb/ppm I am measuring to ml of juice consumed. I tried weighing my mod before/after a puff and found that my scale with 2 decimal precision is not sensitive enough. My employer has agreed to let me borrow a scale with 3 decimal precision. This scale is so precise that we have to enclose them because drafts of air can affect the measurements. I think it will do the trick.
I am seeing light at the end of the tunnel, but still a lot of meticulous work to do.
Now I need to equate the ppb/ppm I am measuring to ml of juice consumed. I tried weighing my mod before/after a puff and found that my scale with 2 decimal precision is not sensitive enough. My employer has agreed to let me borrow a scale with 3 decimal precision. This scale is so precise that we have to enclose them because drafts of air can affect the measurements. I think it will do the trick.
I am seeing light at the end of the tunnel, but still a lot of meticulous work to do.
Heck, Mike, the scale I use for DIY, .01gm resolution, is effected by drafts, too. I have to shut off the ceiling fan while I'm mixing or it wobbles a few hundredths constantly. Can't breath on it either, same thing happens. I can imagine what would happen with one that goes down to .001gm, worse than a balance beam for powder measuring.
The challenge is that my sample puffs are about .01g. Enough that sometimes one puff doesnt register at all on the scale, and then the next puff registers 0.02g after the 2 puffs. The resolution of 2 decimal places just isnt good enough for me to get reliable results.
This is what I will use:
Yeah, something like that or from Mettler, same thing. But you can also weigh across say 10 puffs, average and divide to per puff. No, not as precise, but perhaps more convenient. The amount drawn off a single puff is way small to try and rely on the weight change of a single sample, even with the best scale, as unless you're using a mechanical device to assure every single puff is identical in volume drawn.
I have not automated the puff. I may go there but I am hoping I wont have to. I am only trying to prove/disprove the point, not publish in a scientific journal. I do believe I can get sufficient data to accomplish that goal.
So maybe the "10 puff, reweigh and divide the weight differential by 10" might be good enough for average puff juice volume.
It might "if" I control my thumb lag well enough. I.e. not fire before/after the sample is drawn.
I have access to the scale, wont be until next week, but I want to start there before resorting to averaging.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
