Rock tumbler overnight seems to have accelerated aging of my DIY juice

[ErnieKim]

Newbie here.

I'm making: equal parts of cinnamon/raspberry/sweetener in VG base. I've steeped it up to two weeks but it has always remained cloudy/milky in appearance. Heating it to 150 makes it clear but as it cools it goes back to milky appearance.

Suprisingly, after 12 hours rotating (end to end to get better agitation) in a rock tumbler, it's totally clear! It's also "smoother" in flavor; the chemical taste is gone, more subtle.

can anyone tell me if this has accelerated aging, is it just mixed better?

Thanks,

Erniekim

 

[dannyv45]

There are many ways to speed steep and tumbling is just one of them. Not so much in wide use but never the less it can be done that way. Read my blog on the many ways to speed steep.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...you-wanted-know-about-steeping-then-some.html

Here are some other blogs that will give you some great tips.

My blogs will give insight into all aspects of DYI, from steeping to what supplies to have on hand to a basic walk through mixing your first E-juice.

E-Cigarette Forum - dannyv45 - Blogs

Then read hoosier's blogs. These blogs concentrate on fine tuning your mix and give insight on additives.

E-Cigarette Forum - Hoosier - Blogs

Then read Boletus's blog's. These blogs concentrate on formulation of nicotine baces regarding proper calculations methods for figuring Nicotine concentration as well as safety.

E-Cigarette Forum - Boletus - Blogs

Then read Ginger's book "E-Cigarettes 102: DIY e-liquid". It is a book which I've contributed to that delivers an in depth easy to follow guide in the art of DYI.

E-Cigarettes 102: DIY E-Liquid

I recommend viewing VPLive Vape Team Episode #82: DIY Safety and bookmark it for future reference. It explains safety in all aspects of DYI.

VPLive Vape Team Episode #82: DIY Safety

then read the stickies at the top of the page.

this will explain a lot of the how's and why's.

 

[ErnieKim]

My background is physics. I've worked with chemists over the last 30 years to define appropriate ultrasonic frequencies and wave modalities for appropriate mixing of chemicals. It is a very exact science that typically involves both physics and chemistry and it is a well established fact that frequency and wave modalities MUST be very precise for a given family of chemicals. In summary; you are shooting in the dark when you grab an ultrasonic cleaner with unknown specifications and expect it to perform appropriately; it's just plain silly.
This is why chemists use stirring motions; they work.
My suprise was how quickly stirring worked and I'm hoping to hear back from someone familiar enough with the chemistry to validate my assumption that the molecular structure of the chemicals is so similar that they combine quickly; with stirring. This said, I'm puzzled about why people try to use ultrasonics to combine the molecules; it's a waste of time and money.

 

[ErnieKim]

I just got a call from a chemist acquaintance and he confirmed my assumption. He verified that the ultrasonic cleaner frequency is totally wrong and that the wave modality is two orders of magnitude short of where it needs to be. He indicated that it is impossible to get good results using this device and if people see mixing occurring from its use, the mixing is only taking place when bottle are moved in and out of the device.
Kim

 

[ErnieKim]

I just mixed a new batch and am going to put it in my clothes dryer and low heat. Certain elements of the mix can be off-gassed at temperatures above 98 degrees so I'll have to include a thermometer in the dryer.

I'm just using a little bungee cord and the holes in the dryer drum to hold the box in place.

The bottles should be in the vertical orientation in the dryer; the fluid gets more agitation as it passes through the cap of the bottle.

If the bottles are horizontal in orientation, the fluid just rolls around the bottle circumference and gets little or no physical agitation.

Have fun,

Erniekim

 

[LMS62]

I just got a call from a chemist acquaintance and he confirmed my assumption. He verified that the ultrasonic cleaner frequency is totally wrong and that the wave modality is two orders of magnitude short of where it needs to be. He indicated that it is impossible to get good results using this device and if people see mixing occurring from its use, the mixing is only taking place when bottle are moved in and out of the device.
Kim

Do all ultrasonic cleaners operate at the exact same frequencies?

 

[ErnieKim]

No they don't, that's the problem. And different juice chemistries would require different frequencies and modalities to mix them properly. To use this method correctly, one would have to; 1) research to find the correct specifications for ultrasonic agitation, and 2) find a cleaner that delivers the appropriate specification. Trust me, the manufacturers are not going to even know the exact specifications their units.
All of this is mute anyway, it's like trying to modify a Mack truck to use in a road race, why bother when you can throw it in the dryer on low heat or a tumbler with no heat and get better results; crazy!
Erniekim.

 

[dannyv45]

Well then I guess this will be news to the many here that invested in ultrasonic cleaners and crock pots and hot plates and have had great success with them. And I guess all the blind testing that has been done, has been done for nothing. And I guess your conclusions mean that natural steeping where there is no movement of the liquid at all is also just a myth.

When someone is offering advice, tips or even an opinion that differs from yours it's rude to simply dismiss it as "just plain silly and a waste of time and money". What I was simply trying to do was give advice, information and tips.

 

[ErnieKim]

Danny,
You are putting a lot of words in my mouth. Please re-read the actual facts that I did convey, they come from reputable chemists. The other thing I provided was logic, and I think it's quite solid.

If you are going to dispute the fields of physics and chemistry and decades of well-established precedence, you might first want to collect and prepare some legitimate, defendable data.

You should be especially careful when "advising" on something that can affect someone's health and well-being. Professionals who legitimately provide this type of advise have the backing of many years of collective knowledge, and substantial insurance policies.

"Sharing" information is very different than "advising".

 

[LMS62]

Danny,
You are putting a lot of words in my mouth. Please re-read the actual facts that I did convey, they come from reputable chemists. The other thing I provided was logic, and I think it's quite solid.

If you are going to dispute the fields of physics and chemistry and decades of well-established precedence, you might first want to collect and prepare some legitimate, defendable data.

You should be especially careful when "advising" on something that can affect someone's health and well-being. Professionals who legitimately provide this type of advise have the backing of many years of collective knowledge, and substantial insurance policies.

"Sharing" information is very different than "advising".

Interesting. You state that Danny should collect and prepare legitimate, defendable data to support his opinion, yet the only legitimate, defendable data you have provided is that you claim you worked with chemists for 30 years (yet you yourself are not a chemist) and that a chemist acquaintance of yours called you to support your take on it.

Have I got that about right?

 

[Boletus]

Given a choice between practical solutions that have been shown to work in the real world and theoretical ones propounded by self-professed experts, I will choose the former every time.

 

[WillyZee]

Danny,
You are putting a lot of words in my mouth. Please re-read the actual facts that I did convey, they come from reputable chemists. The other thing I provided was logic, and I think it's quite solid.

If you are going to dispute the fields of physics and chemistry and decades of well-established precedence, you might first want to collect and prepare some legitimate, defendable data.

You should be especially careful when "advising" on something that can affect someone's health and well-being. Professionals who legitimately provide this type of advise have the backing of many years of collective knowledge, and substantial insurance policies.

"Sharing" information is very different than "advising".

I would also be interested in any concrete data you could provide ... with decades of well-established precedence ... you have anything other than a phone call from some guy?

 

[ErnieKim]

As I stated, my background is physics. I don't claim to be an expert on methodologies outside my skill set. I follow standard scientific protocol by collaborating with experts in the various methodologies relevant to the issue at hand. Ultrasonics is physics. Mixing chemicals is chemistry. The only "take on it" is a comment from a knowledgeable person. The only other comments I've received are egocentric in nature and not at all related to the subject. I've conveyed sound information. I've yet to see any legitimate discussion on the topic.

 

[shroomalistic]

We need someone who works at an am pm or 7eleven to put a bottle on the heated hot dog rollers to see how that works. A heat spin should work like stirring

 

[Nermal]

You should be especially careful when "advising" on something that can affect someone's health and well-being.

It's a health issue? Possibly your chemist friend will give you another call to explain the health issues involved in ultrasonic mixing.

 

[WillyZee]

I'm curious how you know what specific chemicals you are trying mix in the clothes dryer?

Do you have a detailed list of exactly what is in the various flavourings you are mixing?

 

[ErnieKim]

Given a choice between practical solutions that have been shown to work in the real world and theoretical ones propounded by self-professed experts, I will choose the former every time.

My point exactly. Stirring is the standard practice for mixing chemicals so as not to influence their molecular structure. Supporting empirical data is everywhere; it is standard practice.

Can the same be said for propagating high energy ultrasonic waves, of an unknown frequency and an unknown wave mode through a constantly changing combination of chemicals?

The answer is no. If anyone can find any validation of this practice, it I would love to see it.

How then can anyone "advise" someone to do it. Just because it is being done does not make it acceptable.

 

[Boletus]

Let's get just a tiny bit technical; the steeping phenomenon is a result of two processes that faciltate interactions within the fluid, dispersion (bulk movement of the fluids, aka mixing) and diffusion (molecular interactions). The dispersion can be accomplished several ways, including shaking bottles, using a magnetic stir plate or a rock tumbler, and putting juice in your hubcaps and driving down a bumpy road in an old pickup truck (thanks rowdyplace). Diffusion will occur by itself whether we want it to or not, but we can accelerate that process. The most accessible method is application of heat, and that can be accomplished several ways, but excess heat can be detrimental.

Limited experimentation has been performed by several ECF DIY forum members, and some helpful strategies were developed. Heat was shown to be the most significant accelerator, and anyone that has actually read Danny's blog about steeping will see that, for most intents and purposes, a crockpot or similar device that can keep the juice around 150 deg F and occasional shaking was found to be about as effective as using an ultrasonic cleaner (UC), with a good old fashioned thermos filled with hot water coming in close behind.

Is the ultrasonic action of the UC completely useless? That has not been proven one way or another, but the UC might boost the dispersion of the fluid by some tiny amount while it is in a hot water bath. Does it actually create a harmonic resonance in the fluid that greatly facilitates diffusion? Possibly not, and that is where the frequency will determine the degree to which diffusion would be accelerated. So, Ernie, you have a point, but it is only one part of the larger picture, in my opinion. Certainly a UC that can hold the juice at the right temperature will work at least as well as a crockpot that does the same thing. And could the UC also create tiny dispersion waves within the fluid, regardless of frequency, to at least some miniscule degree? I don't see why not.

But here is where the real take-home exists, as far as I can see: once you have the juice at 150 F or so, shaking it becomes much more effective, simply because the viscosity has been reduced, so the dispersion forces are more completely distributed in the fluid. Diffusion will progress relative to the concentration gradient in the fluid, and left sitting untouched at room temperature, diffusion will proceed very slowly. Adding heat and agitation at the same time (or with quick alternation) can reduce a four week steep time to a matter of hours. That has been proven many, many times.

 

[ErnieKim]

I'm curious how you know what specific chemicals you are trying mix in the clothes dryer?

Do you have a detailed list of exactly what is in the various flavourings you are mixing?

This is simply mixing of chemicals approved for such by manufacturers in accordance with industry codes and standards. It is not subjecting the chemicals to a physical process (ultrasound) that can DRASTICALLY alter its molecular structure.

 

[Mrdaputer]

This is simply mixing of chemicals approved for such by manufacturers in accordance with industry codes and standards. It is not subjecting the chemicals to a physical process (ultrasound) that can DRASTICALLY alter its molecular structure.

Interesting and when I put a glass bottle in a thermos of 160 degree water let it sit for a few hours turns colors and taste better to me and my friends it's all in our heads as well as hundreds of ppl on the ECF forum Interesting how we all have been so wrong for so long