Bear with me, I havent had time to sit down and wrap my head around this all yet.
I need to figure out how to get the math done on this website into a formula on a spreadsheet.
Parts Per Million (ppm) Converter
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
I need to figure out how to get the math done on this website into a formula on a spreadsheet.
Parts Per Million (ppm) Converter
I hope you're good with Excel.
If it helps, off the top of my head, formaldehyde is 30.032 g/mol
It is after the second cup of coffee.
Blimey Mike, this one is really giving you a workout. Makes sticking probes in coils look easy.
Sounds like you are getting there though.
OK, I have some tweaking to do, but I got a pretty good review from Dr Kurt!
So, my next step is to increase my sample size to get at least a 10mg ejuice per puff sample, so I can claim the 3 decimal results.
Other than that, it looks like I have a process\protocol that works. I will run another validation round, then start playing with juice ratios and temps. That will tell us if there is anything to this Wang business or not!!!!
Other than that, it looks like I have a process\protocol that works. I will run another validation round, then start playing with juice ratios and temps. That will tell us if there is anything to this Wang business or not!!!!
BTW, just to compare to the Wang chart:
1 mg/g is equal to 1 ug/mg
Wang used the later, but they are one and the same.
1 mg/g is equal to 1 ug/mg
Wang used the later, but they are one and the same.
Thanks, it is as real as I can get without a University budget.
It "appears" though, that it will be good enough to prove/disprove the Wang theory.
I fully expect numbers from a real modern day atty will be lower than Wang's, as 100% of the juice in Wangs study was exposed to the specified temperature. Whereas in a real atty a significant portion of the juice does not contact the coil, but vaporizes at a lower temp directly off the wick. What will be interesting is if I detect higher levels (than above) using a 100% VG juice at 475f. That will tell us if the phenomena is worth paying attention to or not. And if so, by what magnitude.
My gut tells me the phenomena is genuine, but I have no clue what magnitude we will see.
In any event, before people get scared, regardless of the outcome, this is head and shoulders safer than combustible tobacco. So DO NOT panic. Vaping is still young, a toddler in fact, we are just starting to learn how to do it better and safer where possible.
I've read this entire thread and I agree with you. That is why this is so important. An atty is not a reactor vessel
. I had a couple of TC mods and played with them, well over a year ago. Both mods died (Evic VTC Mini). And I preferred the vape I got in power mode so I never pursued it. It was a solution in search of a problem. But now, maybe not. It motivated me to buy a Pico and SS430 and try again. I'm not at all freaked out over this, I think I see things in the right context. I do see the value in staying away from the bleeding edge of things, power wise, now. Mostly it's just been interesting watching you puzzle your way through this on a modest budget. Since Kurt thinks you are well in the ballpark, I'm confident you will get useful numbers even if you didn't throw enough money at it to get something published. I think you will determine if it could be a problem, and then someone with grant money will take it further.
By the way... if, during your temp tests, you find the measured levels going through the roof at some certain point, then you will have proven that Wang was correct in his basic temperature/toxicity conclusion. I think you've proven that YOU are able to calibrate a TC mod accurate enough to determine the temperature that it occurs. The numbers won't matter because they will go through the roof. The only meaningful thing is the temp that it does that. Wangs precise numbers were not important, except temp. It is the near vertical climb that matters.
So for me, I want to see if your graph is as steep as his, and where the knee in the curve lies on the temp spectrum. And lastly I do appreciate your emphasis on TC because that is the only way we mere mortals can apply all this science to our vaping. Which is why I bought the Pico. I know where this is going, it is only the details that remain unknown at this point. Well, actually, the one unknown here is if you subjectively notice a difference when you hit the knee in the curve that you identify with your testing. That is the $64 million question that is so relevant.
So for me, I want to see if your graph is as steep as his, and where the knee in the curve lies on the temp spectrum. And lastly I do appreciate your emphasis on TC because that is the only way we mere mortals can apply all this science to our vaping. Which is why I bought the Pico. I know where this is going, it is only the details that remain unknown at this point. Well, actually, the one unknown here is if you subjectively notice a difference when you hit the knee in the curve that you identify with your testing. That is the $64 million question that is so relevant.
The first pass will be an extreme (but vapable) temp with pure VG. That will tell me if it worth pursuing the granularity of the curve. If the difference is significant I will do the curves.
They are time consuming. To get a good sample run at a given set of variables it takes 5-7 samples. Each sample takes 45-60 minutes to do. So we are talking 4-6 hours just to test one single temp\juice scenario.
I dont mind doing it, but I want to make sure the view is worth the climb first. If the magnitude is relatively small, then it may not be worth it. If it is worthwhile, I would envision a graph with temp along the X axis, and formaldehyde along the Y axis, comparing them all.
They are time consuming. To get a good sample run at a given set of variables it takes 5-7 samples. Each sample takes 45-60 minutes to do. So we are talking 4-6 hours just to test one single temp\juice scenario.
I dont mind doing it, but I want to make sure the view is worth the climb first. If the magnitude is relatively small, then it may not be worth it. If it is worthwhile, I would envision a graph with temp along the X axis, and formaldehyde along the Y axis, comparing them all.
Last edited:
I predict there is a curve in your future . There may not be the granularity of a multi-million dollar research project, but there will be a curve.
. There may not be the granularity of a multi-million dollar research project, but there will be a curve.
"this is head and shoulders safer than combustible tobacco"
Mike, are you setup to obtain a data point for cigarette smoke?
Mike, are you setup to obtain a data point for cigarette smoke?
Maybe, not specifically, but I can probably McGyver something.
The biggest challenge is that I bet it would exceed the range of the HC2O meter. The other challenge is that I am basing the vape tests on mg of ejuice consumed, not volume of puff. Not sure how I would correlate that with a burning cig, or if that is even the right approach.
I bet a little bit of research would probably come up with plenty of aldehyde data on stinkies though. Not sure me measuring it would have much value.
Would be interesting to read what you experience taste wise, when you start hitting the upcurve, and then backtrack to just before the upcurve. I am a firm believer that I can just taste when bad things are being produced, and can correct the situation causing it, ie, poor wicking, poor wick contact with coil, power level, airflow, etc.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
