Debunking ultrasonic steeping

[tailland]

That is most excellent to know. That opens up room for a whole different kind of accellerated aging process.

BTW: Here's the website of a manufacturer who has developed ultrasonic mixers especially for e-liquids... Ultraschall-gestützer Reifungsprozess für E-Liquids (google translate is your friend)

 

[Old Greybeard]

Thanks @tailland,

That is a very interesting site. It would be fairly easy to construct a probe type ultrasonic tip with some discrete consumer driver electronics that you could insert into a smallish (say 50ml) bottle. The difficulty comes with larger volumes, you would need a larger piezo and bigger currents etc.

It is also fascinating that they state that the bath method is not uniform, which might go some way to explain some people's success versus failure depending on the hardware they have.

I might need to source some carbon nano-tubes, that seems to be a test for determining the efficiency of the device .

 

[Old Greybeard]

Ultrasonic homogeniser in action

 

[smoked25years]

Normally this is via water, as hydrogen dioxide [Water to you and me] is an extremely good conductor of sound waves.

Your term is incorrect. Water has two hydrogens, not two oxygens. Just call it "water".

If you want to mix, a vortex works really well for small volumes. Mixing seems to be what you are testing.

Here's a photo of a vortex. They are typically used for volumes of around 20 microliters to 100 mililiters.

For large volumes, like 300 ml or more, an orbital shaker is often used instead.

...or a magnetic stirrer

 

[smoked25years]

Ultrasonic homogeniser in action

I have used them but not for mixing nicotine. They get extremely hot and you'd need to frequently stop and cool in an ice bucket so you don't cook your liquid. I wouldn't recommend it for the purpose of mixing e-liquid.

I just shake mine to mix. "Steeping" is not something that I've given attention.

 

[Old Greybeard]

Your term is incorrect. Water has two hydrogens, not two oxygens. Just call it "water".

Oops, I meant dihydrogen monoxide - There is a great spoof site Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division - dihydrogen monoxide info which I found hilarious.

 

[Old Greybeard]

They get extremely hot and you'd need to frequently stop and cool in an ice bucket so you don't cook your liquid.

That makes sense, my UC gets quite hot even with the heater turned off, although in the tests I ran the liquid in the container didn't warm up anywhere near as much as the water in the bath.

If the probe is inserted directly into the juice I can see that being an issue.

 

[smoked25years]

That makes sense, my UC gets quite hot even with the heater turned off, although in the tests I ran the liquid in the container didn't warm up anywhere near as much as the water in the bath.

If the probe is inserted directly into the juice I can see that being an issue.

The probe is put in direct contact with the liquid. In addition to heat, you have to be careful to avoid bubbles. It's not well suited for e-liquid.

A vortex, orbital shaker, or magnetic stirrer would be much more appropriate choices.

 

[Eskie]

Thanks on the VG! That's where the test is meaningful for me. I guess it's another valid method of shaking without all the arm strain.

 

[DaveP]

I used a jewelry cleaner UC from Harbor Freight for a while to mix/steep my juices. Then, I bought a couple of different style milk frothers from Amazon and relegated the UC to its previous job of cleaning jewelry. The milk frother does an adequate job. I'm usually vaping juice I mixed a month or two ago anyway, so quick steeping isn't a must in my book. Time, frothing, and an occasional shake works for me.

If I were selling juice and dependent on quantity and fast turnaround to get it out the door, I'd probably have a vortex mixer to blend juice in bottles.

 

[Zaryk]

I use a hobby sized paint shaker to mix mine up. It works very well for the smaller quantities (under 100ml). When I mix up large quantities I just shake by hand. This works well for me as i make a lot of 10ml testers in 10ml bottles, and mixing those by hand in those tiny bottles is not the easiest of tasks. Not a lot of room for shaking. The paint shaker makes short work of it. My large quantity mixes go in large jugs and it has plenty of room for hand shaking. I use my ultra sonic cleaner for cleaning purposes only.

 

[DaveP]

I use a hobby sized paint shaker to mix mine up. It works very well for the smaller quantities (under 100ml). When I mix up large quantities I just shake by hand. This works well for me as i make a lot of 10ml testers in 10ml bottles, and mixing those by hand in those tiny bottles is not the easiest of tasks. Not a lot of room for shaking. The paint shaker makes short work of it. My large quantity mixes go in large jugs and it has plenty of room for hand shaking. I use my ultra sonic cleaner for cleaning purposes only.

I use these to mix juice. So far I've seen no need to change.

https://www.amazon.com/Badger-Air-B...F8&qid=1537965681&sr=8-1&keywords=hobby+mixer

https://www.amazon.com/Norpro-Cordl...&qid=1537965836&sr=8-16&keywords=milk+stirrer

 

[Zaryk]

I use these to mix juice. So far I've seen no need to change.

https://www.amazon.com/Badger-Air-B...F8&qid=1537965681&sr=8-1&keywords=hobby+mixer

https://www.amazon.com/Norpro-Cordl...&qid=1537965836&sr=8-16&keywords=milk+stirrer

I have considered getting one of those, and i have no doubt they work very well, but it looks too large for my 10ml tester bottles and I have no problems with the rudimentary method of hand shaking my 250ml+ jugs. It also just seemed like another thing I would need to clean up when I'm done, and the less I need to clean and take care of the better. Thanks for the links though, i think i know someone that could use one of these and I'll pass the links on to them.

 

[DaveP]

I have considered getting one of those, and i have no doubt they work very well, but it looks too large for my 10ml tester bottles and I have no problems with the rudimentary method of hand shaking my 250ml+ jugs. It also just seemed like another thing I would need to clean up when I'm done, and the less I need to clean and take care of the better. Thanks for the links though, i think i know someone that could use one of these and I'll pass the links on to them.

There are several tools in both kits. 10ml bottles are pretty tight. The Norpro has one attachment that Y's out normally, but can be squeezed together to fit into small openings. It fans out as it rotates. There's also a tip in that kit that's straight, but has a slot in the tip to facilitate mixing. As cheap as they are, they are a valuable addition to most mix kits.

For bottle with small openings I'd pick the Norpro

 

[Cynophobe]

I have an orbital sander with foam packaging out of the tank boxes I had lying around attached to the pad, the pad has holes in it to hold the various sized bottles for a good old shake.

 

[Old Greybeard]

I have an orbital sander with foam packaging out of the tank boxes I had lying around attached to the pad, the pad has holes in it to hold the various sized bottles for a good old shake.

That's a neat idea, @Cynophobe. Heard of jig-saws, but that's a new one for me.

 

[zoiDman]

There seems to be a lot of controversy concerning the use of heated and unheated Ultrasonic Cleaners [UC] for the steeping of DIY juice. I haven't managed to perform a blind scientific test yet with real life juice scenarios as I don't have enough available kit, but I hope to do this soon once I stock up on more plastic bottles and hardware etc.

Having worked with ultrasonics extensively over a number of years, I was disappointed to see the following video online.



While the creator has made a valiant attempt to debunk the efficacy of UC baths when it comes to the mixing and steeping of ejuice solutions, his test is based, as far as I can tell, on a false premise. For ultrasonics to work effectively in this scenario, the transducer has to be effectively coupled to the liquid in the container. Normally this is via water, as hydrogen dioxide [Water to you and me] is an extremely good conductor of sound waves. Five times as good as air, in fact. However, if you are to use a flexible plastic bottle, this will have the effect of attenuating the waves hitting the ejuice. While some of the waves may pass through the material, the soft plastic will act as a shock absorber. A simple test will prove this, flick a glass jar and a standard ejuice bottle with your fingernail, and the glass is clearly a lot harder. While I am not a molecular scientist or chemist, my hypothesis is the harder the material of the container holding the ejuice, the more effective the "mixing" process will be. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on rigid plastic bottles as I was not able to test any, but I suspect that as they are generally injection moulded, and are molecularly different from glass, they may show a slight improvement in conductivity over their softer cousins.

I decided to conduct a test with the following parameters:

• A PG and water soluble powdered food colouring mix would be steeped in a glass container, semi-submerged in an unheated UC for 1 hour
• The food colouring would not require heat to dissolve and be proven to dissolve quickly and effectively in water with a minimum of stirring
• A control glass container would be left at the same temperature for the same time
• At the end of the experiment the results would be compared, and both containers swirled rapidly [like a brandy or wine glass to release the aroma] to reveal any sediment remaining
• The UC would be rated at 50W @ 40Khz. The 100W heating element would not deployed

The results [In photo order]

1. Food colouring added to the jar destined for the UC. Note the trails where the powder has dissolved while gravity has pulled the powder to the bottom
2. The jar in the running UC. Due to the air in the jar, I couldn't submerge it or rest it on its base, but 5 seconds in you can see the food colouring beginning to dissolve
3. 10 seconds in and I think we can work out what the results will be like
4. The control 60 seconds in
5. The UC test after 60 minutes
6. Both containers after 60 minutes. Due to the nature of the UC, the surrounding water was warmer than the control, as the bath heats up during operation even with the built in heating element turned off. IIRC, the temperature of the water bath was 40C versus an ambient temperature of 22C. This temperature disparity can be effectively ignored due to points 4&5 above - the water in the UC would have not risen much above ambient at this point
7. Top view of the UC container. Some scum has developed on the surface [as had on the control]. This may be down to any detergent used to wash both items not being properly rinsed off, or something in the food colouring or the PG.
8. Swirl test of the UC jar - no sediment. The shadows are in the background, not the jar.
9. Swirl test of the control, big lump of sediment

Conclusions

1. Using a UC bath at room temperature effectively dissolved the powdered food colouring over the control
2. Due to the construction of UC's, unless they are cooled it is impossible to make a like for like comparison due to the inherent rise in bath temperature. In theory, a miniscule rise in temperature will also incur in any shaken test fluid. Heat will inevitably create Brownian motion in the solution, and will assist the dissolving of any matter. This is proven science, the results demonstrated in points 3&4 above prove however that while heat will have an effect, the ultrasound is also assisting in combining the colouring
3. This is not an exact like for like test against the video above, rather it is a demonstration of the efficiency of ultrasound in dissolving PG soluble matter in PG using a glass container. A closer comparison would be achieved by using a] Plastic and glass containers b] a mixture of VG/PG+ dissolved colouring. If requested, I'll be happy to conduct this, but it will have to wait until I have some additional spares and to be honest it will have to be on a smaller scale as I don't want to waste any more ingredients. Personally, I believe the results will be identical, plastic will fail and glass will prove to be more efficient. The only question will be down to the viscosity of the fluids when mixed. My hypothesis is that a magnetic stirrer will be more efficient, followed by UC glass, then UC plastic.

View attachment 769295 View attachment 769297 View attachment 769299 View attachment 769301 View attachment 769303 View attachment 769305 View attachment 769307 View attachment 769309 View attachment 769311

Nice Work GreyBeard.

Always enjoy seeing people putting Theory into Application. And then getting Results to draw Inferences Based on them, verses what others Say is happening.

I remember hearing a lecture once by Linus Pauling about Orbital Hybridization relating to Polyethylene Terephthalate. Much of it was above my Understanding. But I remember something very clearly that Dr. Pauling said about problem solving.

And that was (Loosely Paraphrased)...

"To solve a problem, one first needs to completely understand all the processes involved, and their subsequent interactions, on a fundamental level.

If one can fully understand the all the dynamics at play in a system, then the problem's solution is no longer a mystery. It will be revealed as merely the predictable outcome of the system."

I have been doing DIY since about the time I joined the ECF. And have heard of Many Ways to "Steep" an e-Liquid. Along with the Debates as to if something Works. But I have yet to get a Decent Understand as to exactly what "Steeping" Is or Does?

 

[Old Greybeard]

I have yet to get a Decent Understand as to exactly what "Steeping" Is or Does?

There seems to be as many opinions as to what exactly is happening as the number of variables surrounding the whole process .

And I've just thought of another two, PH/Acidity and sugars.

What we really need is access to a decent lab with some gas spectrometry kit. That ain't cheap, or easy to interpret unless you have a very strong grasp of chemistry [Which I don't].

I'm too, am intrigued by the whole process, and am firmly convinced that there is a way to consistently and effectively accelerate or improve the process, as Linus Pauling says it is just a matter of understanding what is actually going on.

Mankind has not only discovered wine, cheese, and yeast but has successfully commercialised and improved the process efficiency over time. I agree that there naturally will be limitations, and my guess is one of them will be time. Without actually trying the very expensive kit from the German ultrasound/homogenisation site it is hard to tell how much is hype and how much is reality, they sell their kit on the basis you can turn out juice in minutes. That has to be taken with a pinch of salt though, being a German -> English translation.

Two factors keep jumping out at me - a] Heat and Mixing seem to be common denominators irrespective if you are commercial supplier or DIY'er and b] As this is clearly an organic process, the idea of using an ongoing "base" (Like the ever boiling stockpot or everlasting yeast culture used in artisan breads) as a seeding medium, seems a logical step.

All of this comes from the mouth of someone yet to try out their first matured DIY batch. Time and experience will reveal more, but it is still fascinating.

The little tip I think I have discovered is that if you mix the nicotine and flavourings really well first (PG based) then add the VG last, the process seems to go a bit quicker. Maybe it was just the flavours used, but I noticed a definite change in the colour over 2-3 days than I did with my first batch which was chuck everything in then shake.

 

[tailland]

I had contemplated building my own little hack to make me a stirrer that I can sit on top of a 1l bottle VG and let it do the stirring on its own... with a shaft seal ring you could even glue the motor base to a bottle cap and have the shaft go through it while being sealed from liquid.

Small DC gear motor, 100mm M4 shaft. I had thought of fixating 2 or 3 wing nuts along the shaft to make it a multi-headed stirrer which can even switch directions if needed.

Coupled with a 12v battey, this should make a good tool. Only thing I don't like is the dirt on the thread. I can sure clean it but it doesn't make me feel really good about lowering it into the liquid.

 

[zoiDman]

...

Two factors keep jumping out at me - a] Heat and Mixing seem to be common denominators irrespective if you are commercial supplier or DIY'er and b] As this is clearly an organic process, the idea of using an ongoing "base" (Like the ever boiling stockpot or everlasting yeast culture used in artisan breads) as a seeding medium, seems a logical step.

...

Yeah... Applying Heat is a pretty Time Honored technique of Speeding Up a Chemical Reaction/Process.

As to what Exactly what the Reaction/Process actually is, that seems to be the 64,000 Dollar question.