Sorry if this has been covered but TL;DR, could one theoretically take a tincture of, say, saint johns wort and put some drops in e juice for added MAO activity? SJW vaporizes at 100-150 C. Any opinions?
- Status
kinabaloo - I've been blowing through the back end of the atties out onto a tissue (that statement is far more innocent than it sounds
) The residue is a pale brownish colour - which can only mean very fine tobacco silt to me.
kinabaloo - I've been blowing through the back end of the atties out onto a tissue (that statement is far more innocent than it sounds
Could be charred citric acid also/instead.
Or the citric acid is reacting with the steel or polyfill.
Or maybe decomposed VG.
Boil off some liquid on a teaspoon, see what you get.
Last edited:
Here's an idea I've been trying out. A simple device that turns an E Cig into its own miniature tobacco espresso machine. I have made a plastic tobacco cup with a metal gauze base that is placed into an E2 atty, directly above the heating coil. All hot vapour produced must pass immediately through the tobacco mixture before being inhaled. So far I've only tried untreated tobacco (ie - taken straight from a cigarette)... it will be interesting to try versions which have been through acid/base procedures and then reduced and dried rather than have juices extracted.
One known method for releasing alkaloids from tobacco is to soak it in an acid solution and then express steam through it... hence this device. This is also not dissimilar from how a real cigarette works - whereby hot smoke is drawn back to release alkaloids from tobacco immediately before it is combusted.
One known method for releasing alkaloids from tobacco is to soak it in an acid solution and then express steam through it... hence this device. This is also not dissimilar from how a real cigarette works - whereby hot smoke is drawn back to release alkaloids from tobacco immediately before it is combusted.
Last edited:
Wont be enough heat. Tobacco will condense the vapor.
Like the Ruyan patent, this is retrograde.
Like the Ruyan patent, this is retrograde.
I'm getting good vapour from this device + some flavour is coming through too. I don't know what Ruyan tried - but it's likely they didn't use acid/base processed tobacco.
I think there is some discussion on such alternatives further back in the thread - perhaps not St John's Wort though.
OK, reporting back..
I took 1ml of WTA, blended with 2ml ejuice and made it my primary vape for 40 or so hours.
I got no "head kick" or anything of the sort but after some time did get the same mindset I had when smoking, a bit toned down to dulled perhaps, a lot less jittery than straight nic. Once established there was no mental roller coaster just a pretty straight line feeling. With straight nic, I can get those peaks and valleys, not so with nic/WTA. I also slept straight through two nights in a row, I usually wake up at least once as a rule, so the effects for me are subtle yet apparent. I do believe there is something to this.
The funny thing is over the last few months, I kinda got used to the "jag" of straight nic and I think my mind/body is saying "go back there, do that". I'm going to shoot for something in between, dropping the WTA levels until I find a better place, I never really liked the dulling effects of smoking but I chalked that up to less oxygen, not WTA. I may hit up a stronger WTA solution in the evening going forward for sleep purposes.
This what my WTA looked like final (3:1, VG:WTA)
I followed along here to get that:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...s-more-effective-e-liquid-87.html#post2644164
3 ml through a fresh atty didn't clog it, it still performs like an atty would after 3 ml of juice.
I was asked earlier if I did any filtering while making up the batch, no, I didn't but what I did do is pull liquids via stopper anytime I had to move them, I think that always kept particulates, sludge, etc. out of the mix, I never tried to get every last drop of anything, just left any sludges in the bottom and discarded it.
The tobacco I used was "Golden Harvest", natural blend, I let it dry off and ran it through a coffee grinder before adding carbonate and oil (EVO).
I took 1ml of WTA, blended with 2ml ejuice and made it my primary vape for 40 or so hours.
I got no "head kick" or anything of the sort but after some time did get the same mindset I had when smoking, a bit toned down to dulled perhaps, a lot less jittery than straight nic. Once established there was no mental roller coaster just a pretty straight line feeling. With straight nic, I can get those peaks and valleys, not so with nic/WTA. I also slept straight through two nights in a row, I usually wake up at least once as a rule, so the effects for me are subtle yet apparent. I do believe there is something to this.
The funny thing is over the last few months, I kinda got used to the "jag" of straight nic and I think my mind/body is saying "go back there, do that". I'm going to shoot for something in between, dropping the WTA levels until I find a better place, I never really liked the dulling effects of smoking but I chalked that up to less oxygen, not WTA. I may hit up a stronger WTA solution in the evening going forward for sleep purposes.
This what my WTA looked like final (3:1, VG:WTA)
I followed along here to get that:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...s-more-effective-e-liquid-87.html#post2644164
3 ml through a fresh atty didn't clog it, it still performs like an atty would after 3 ml of juice.
I was asked earlier if I did any filtering while making up the batch, no, I didn't but what I did do is pull liquids via stopper anytime I had to move them, I think that always kept particulates, sludge, etc. out of the mix, I never tried to get every last drop of anything, just left any sludges in the bottom and discarded it.
The tobacco I used was "Golden Harvest", natural blend, I let it dry off and ran it through a coffee grinder before adding carbonate and oil (EVO).
Almost exactly the same as my experience.
I followed along here to get that:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...s-more-effective-e-liquid-87.html#post2644164
3 ml through a fresh atty didn't clog it, it still performs like an atty would after 3 ml of juice.
I was asked earlier if I did any filtering while making up the batch, no, I didn't but what I did do is pull liquids via stopper anytime I had to move them, I think that always kept particulates, sludge, etc. out of the mix, I never tried to get every last drop of anything, just left any sludges in the bottom and discarded it.
This what my WTA looked like final (3:1, VG:WTA)
Looks very good.
Great to hear no clogging; good advice to take care to leave all precipitates behind.
The method has been enhanced a bit and is now here:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...e-method-wta-e-liquid-extraction-tobacco.html
Last edited:
Why so much complication with the tobacco extraction? Let's just use some of mother natures other subsances; Through some research, I have found that some reversable maoa and maob herbals might be in order. Specifically some syrian rue-reversable maoa and kava kava-reversable maob. Will try an herbal e juice blend of both this weekend and give you guys a report.
Last edited:
Kinabaloo and others - I know you are working hard to develop a better eliquid. If you think that there are "companies" out there trying to do the same thing, maybe they and you could benefit from each others' experience. Do you have any idea if any company is working on this? You are working so hard at it, and I, for one, really appreciate it. I'd sure like to see a more satisfactory eliquid developed, as I'm sure many, many other people would. Well, anyway, keep up the good work ! I personally don't understand much of what you are trying to do, but I wish you the best.
It's pretty much just me, these days
As for commercial production, it would be a different process; not difficult.
Maybe there are players in the wings. Let's hope so ...
Maybe you can get others interested, and then start your own company! Just kidding, I suppose - you probably have a "day job".
It's pretty much just me, these days
Not just you kina. I'm workin on some things but progress is slow right now. Probably same for some others.
On DVap's idea about spreading out the tobacco, soaked in carbonate solution and oil, with regards to the partition in terms of relative solubility (~4-6 times more favorable for the organic solvent for freebase alkaloids) ...
The idea is that the water will preferentially evaporate, enhancing oil uptake of the freebase alkaloids.
Four worrries :
* The extra time for this step - not a big issue, perhaps 6-12 hours? (but see next point)
* The water might be hindered from evaporation by the oil, and so this might achieve little
* The freebase alkaloids might become stranded rather than migrating to the oil. For effective evaporation the water needs to demulsify to some extent and that will happen over time but is exactly why the oil might not take up the alkaloids. Perhaps remix the oil and tobacco after to enable oil uptake? But as the tobacco begins to dry it might absorb some of our alkaloid rich oil?
* By leaving the mix for many hours (tceight does already, I tend to leave it only and hour or two at the carbonate / oil stage) there is scope for oxidation of the alkaloids. Though the alkaloids might be well protected once dissolved in the oil. And are the oxidised forms of the alkaloids inefffective biochemically, as per their usual role?
In summary, only one way to know for sure ...
~~~
tceight's aproach has very little in the way of a water layer after the solution is filtered / squeezed from the tobacco solids. My approach, while also minimising the water volume, is not sooo minimal, and does give a water layer. Maybe this could be gently boiled down? I say boiled rather than simmered because the oil will be on top.
~~~
tceight and I had a bit of an argument recently over the amount of wate to use, though our difference of opinion is actually small. But the key perhaps is the approach regarding the tobacco preparation - where I prefer to use the tobacco as is (as I see it effectively ashed after the carbonate treatment) whereas tceight (and DVap) feel the need for 'liquidising' the tobacco. While this makes good sense in theory, the only issue I have with this approach is a practical one - one ends up with a goo of suspened solids in the oil which is difficult to deal with.
One could just proceed to the acidified water stage and then filter (it is very hard to filter oil), but then one could not be sure that one had predominantly alkaloids only in the final stage.
Which is better? In the end is just a matter of weighing up factors like yield (and max srength of), ease of method, purity, ...
The idea is that the water will preferentially evaporate, enhancing oil uptake of the freebase alkaloids.
Four worrries :
* The extra time for this step - not a big issue, perhaps 6-12 hours? (but see next point)
* The water might be hindered from evaporation by the oil, and so this might achieve little
* The freebase alkaloids might become stranded rather than migrating to the oil. For effective evaporation the water needs to demulsify to some extent and that will happen over time but is exactly why the oil might not take up the alkaloids. Perhaps remix the oil and tobacco after to enable oil uptake? But as the tobacco begins to dry it might absorb some of our alkaloid rich oil?
* By leaving the mix for many hours (tceight does already, I tend to leave it only and hour or two at the carbonate / oil stage) there is scope for oxidation of the alkaloids. Though the alkaloids might be well protected once dissolved in the oil. And are the oxidised forms of the alkaloids inefffective biochemically, as per their usual role?
In summary, only one way to know for sure ...
~~~
tceight's aproach has very little in the way of a water layer after the solution is filtered / squeezed from the tobacco solids. My approach, while also minimising the water volume, is not sooo minimal, and does give a water layer. Maybe this could be gently boiled down? I say boiled rather than simmered because the oil will be on top.
~~~
tceight and I had a bit of an argument recently over the amount of wate to use, though our difference of opinion is actually small. But the key perhaps is the approach regarding the tobacco preparation - where I prefer to use the tobacco as is (as I see it effectively ashed after the carbonate treatment) whereas tceight (and DVap) feel the need for 'liquidising' the tobacco. While this makes good sense in theory, the only issue I have with this approach is a practical one - one ends up with a goo of suspened solids in the oil which is difficult to deal with.
One could just proceed to the acidified water stage and then filter (it is very hard to filter oil), but then one could not be sure that one had predominantly alkaloids only in the final stage.
Which is better? In the end is just a matter of weighing up factors like yield (and max srength of), ease of method, purity, ...
Last edited:
We should also try to do some dry residue testing of our WTA liquids. This is pretty important. Even though some proportion of the e-liquid is spat out and so doesn;t need to be vaporisable at atty temps to leave the atomiser and get at least carried out in the vapor / mist (liquid droplets), the questions are:
potential for atomiser gum up
potential for hazardous heat decomposition products
potential for 'unexpected' constituents arriving in the lungs (that might not be ideal)
~~~
This post and the previous are my thoughts this weekend.
Other outstanding issues as I see them:
* Whether veg oil is a viable or even better alternative to mineral oil; at least that it doesn't hamper end-product purity.
* My calcium carbonate excess citric acid removal idea - proof of concept
* Potential improvements to the method
* (blue sky) an alternative approach vaguely along the lines of 'salting out'
potential for atomiser gum up
potential for hazardous heat decomposition products
potential for 'unexpected' constituents arriving in the lungs (that might not be ideal)
~~~
This post and the previous are my thoughts this weekend.
Other outstanding issues as I see them:
* Whether veg oil is a viable or even better alternative to mineral oil; at least that it doesn't hamper end-product purity.
* My calcium carbonate excess citric acid removal idea - proof of concept
* Potential improvements to the method
* (blue sky) an alternative approach vaguely along the lines of 'salting out'
Last edited:
More of an all day and all night kind of job
~~~
slopes : btw, forgot to mention re your tobacco in e-cig idea: see tropical bob's ideas on putting snus packets into an ecig cart (doused in e-liquid), some year or more ago ...
Kina, as to the second of your 4 worries. The oil hindering the evaporation of water, I think Dvap meant that you can dry out the soaked (oversoaked) tobacco before adding the mineral oil.
ETA: After looking over your 4 worries again I see that if the tobacco is dried before adding the mineral oil there is nothing to worry about.
ETA: After looking over your 4 worries again I see that if the tobacco is dried before adding the mineral oil there is nothing to worry about.
Last edited:
I've been heating up my tobacco with the carbonate solution and then reducing it right down before adding the oil.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
