Rock tumbler overnight seems to have accelerated aging of my DIY juice
- Thread starter ErnieKim
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
as I asked earlier ... how do you even know what chemicals you are mixing?
Ernie, I hate to disillusion you, but there is nothing about e-juice or vaping in general that has been approved by anyone "in accordance with industry codes and standards," because no such codes or standards exist. Really it is just a bunch of hacks re-purposing food flavorings to see what happens. If it tastes OK and does not have immediately harmful effects, they sell it. If bad things are learned about certain ingredients, some vendors stop using them, some do not (depending on the certainty, immediacy, and severity of the harmful effects). At least when you make your own juice, you have a bit more control over the experiment.
So if the UC drastically alters the molecular structure, how can you say it is not for the better? Personally, I don't see it making all that much difference one way or the other, since the amount of energy used is not that great.
Last edited:
Boletus,
I agree with all of your points. Well put.
And yes, the frequency of the UC is totally wrong for agitation in fluids; it's optimized for gold silver and other metals.
While an appropriate frequency and wave mode could be designed to produce a higher level of agitation in a given size and shape container/environment, I t would be very expensive and would need to be altered for various factors: PG, VG, amount of fluid and so on.
It would probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop and then safety trials would begin which would cost millions. It's the world we live in and it has merit in saving lives.
I have always followed the KISS philosophy and it sounds like you may too. In this case the level of agitation required and the 98 degree temperature required to reduce viscosity without altering most chemicals could be achieved in a warm clothes dryer.
Love to go on but I've got to get to bed.
Thanks for the great discussion, I love ego-less technical banter
Erniekim
I only use three and I've checked them out as thoroughly as possible. They're all natural and FDA approved as additives for use in inhalers. They're developed for use in inhalers to mask some of the medicine odors. Long-term studies are underway but those can take a while. Granted, there are no guarantees.
Perhaps you missed my earlier comments. I agree that elevated temperature to reduce viscosity combined with agitation to mix the flavor molecules with the carrier delivers a juice that can taste better, just like natural steeping My original question was why anyone would want to introduce ultrasonic energy into the process when the agitation part can be done with a simple mixing action. The elevated temperature part can be offset by simply running the agitation a little bit longer; in my case it was three more hours. The ultrasonic waves can change the flavor molecules; it doesn't take that much energy to do it. And the ultrasonic transducers in ultrasonic cleaners are quite powerful. I have personally used similar transducers, at very low energys to burn holes in high temperature plastics like Delrin. It's not about the electrical energy used as much as the physical energy produced when the ultrasonic beam is re-directed such that it essentially focuses the sound waves. I'm rambling here but we are definitely on the same page with the effect of chemical blending. I totally agree with you.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 forumInteresting how we all have been so wrong for so long
Last edited:
Do you even vapeYou make no mention of that
Experimentally until I convince myself that it can be done safely. Like you, I grew up in MN; the land of skeptics and rational free-thinkers. This forum is one of the few places that can provide me with legitimate information, which is why I piped in this topic, it seemed to be going in the wrong direction making a simple mixing process more complicated than it needs to be.
Can I just add my two pennorth and say (once again) that sometimes this site is an education, and this has been one of those times.
Thanks all for the information and opinions.
Enlightening.
Thanks all for the information and opinions.
Enlightening.
What you call a simple mixing process is not as easy to do well as it may sound. Sure, anyone can measure ingredients and mix them, but creating something that is worth vaping can actually be fairly difficult, depending on what you are trying to make. That is why the reading that Danny recommends is worthwhile; it will tell you not only how to make juice, but how to consistently make good juice. Until you have done this for a while, you do not know what is required to do it well, and even then underwhelming results are easy to accomplish.
If you walk into a fine restaurant, do you march into the kitchen and tell the chef that you know how to make a bowl of cereal and can grind your own grain, so all of his knowledge is irrelevant? Technical matters regarding ultrasonic waves notwithstanding, that is about what you have done here.
The most complicated process is simply a sum of its individual steps. I have clearly stated that I am only commenting on one of those steps. The one small part that I happen to know something about. "When working collectively to acheive even the smallest goal, in a timely fashion, egos must be left at the door"; I forget who said that.
A complicated process is often much more than the sum of its steps; the steps must be performed in the correct order, and for some processes, the manner in which the steps are performed must be varied according to the conditions that exist when the process is undertaken.
Regarding leaving egos at the door, um, yeah, how about some of that?
I started this thread because research has shown (the most recent summit) that potentially harmful changes can occur in flavoring chemistry when exposed to excessive temperature and/or physical influences. I've tried to introduce the concept that mixing of flavoring and carriers can be performed in a reasonable amount of time, using inexpensive and/or readily available appliances.
I stated that my reasoning stems from a background in ultrasonics and a very real concern over the physical changes that can occur when chemicals are exposed to inappropriate ultrasonic interactions.
I provided a basic finding (nothing new) that adequate mixing of flavor and carrier can be achieved without the introduction of potentially hazardous levels of temperature and/or excessive physical interaction (ultrasound). I was hoping to hear about other members experiences on this topic. Again, it's nothing new but seems like it would be a safer alternative to heavily discussed ultrasonic cleaner.
I have been on many forums and it is not uncommon to see a lot of initial unrelated, elliptical comments. From here on out, I will simply ignore them and only participate in on-topic discussion on what I think, and the experts at the summit think, is an important topic.
The second batch of juice that I ran (same recipe) in the dryer overnight came out well mixed and clear as a bell. The bottle tumbled randomly inside a foam noodle, pretty quiet really, didn't disturb my wife's sleep. I'm going to mix another batch and introduce low heat to see how long it takes to produce similar results.
I stated that my reasoning stems from a background in ultrasonics and a very real concern over the physical changes that can occur when chemicals are exposed to inappropriate ultrasonic interactions.
I provided a basic finding (nothing new) that adequate mixing of flavor and carrier can be achieved without the introduction of potentially hazardous levels of temperature and/or excessive physical interaction (ultrasound). I was hoping to hear about other members experiences on this topic. Again, it's nothing new but seems like it would be a safer alternative to heavily discussed ultrasonic cleaner.
I have been on many forums and it is not uncommon to see a lot of initial unrelated, elliptical comments. From here on out, I will simply ignore them and only participate in on-topic discussion on what I think, and the experts at the summit think, is an important topic.
The second batch of juice that I ran (same recipe) in the dryer overnight came out well mixed and clear as a bell. The bottle tumbled randomly inside a foam noodle, pretty quiet really, didn't disturb my wife's sleep. I'm going to mix another batch and introduce low heat to see how long it takes to produce similar results.
Last edited:
We all agree that heat and motion will speed up the steeping process so let me offer another solution for you to consider and lets leave it at that.
Use a heated magnetic stir plate.
Last edited:
I bought one on ebay, from China, 80 dollars, never received it. Perhaps when I get more familiar with the process, I will initiate a group buy of an American-made one. I'm in my first group buy right now and I'm feeling sorry for the organizer; another China product.
In the meantime, my clothes dryer method is performing OK. I'm down to 4.5 hours at 95 degrees. I thought that I had good mixing at three hours but it went back to cloudy when it came back to room temperature. I'm considering adding something to the bottle to facilitate agitation.
I did some calculations on ultrasonic frequencies in the longitudinal wave modality that would deliver mild agitation in glycerine. Doable but expensive to produce. I'm searching now in hopes that some fish finder/sonar transducers might be in the appropriate range.
I can't help but think this thread was started as a provocative attempt to start a debate. The whole thing just sounds baited.
You had to have known that constantly shaking or rotating a bottle full of chemicals would cause them to mix really really well and contribute to the steeping process.
You stated you were a noob and you were looking for answers.
Your opinion/hearsay seems to be stated as fact when you quite honestly sound like you know nothing about any of this stuff.
And, slow down, think before you hit the reply button. Maybe you won't have to go back and edit every post you make.
Please, unless you have you some links to factual documentation "proving" we who use ultrasonic cleaners to speed steep our juices, are wrong, you are wasting your time here and starting debates about topics that truthfully neither you nor most of us are really qualified to debate.
If a rock tumbler or clothes dryer works for you, by all means use that method and please share your results.
But don't state or imply that some of us very grown up adults (not necessarily mature mind you
) are silly for doing what we do. But really, a clothes dryer? Do you have any idea how silly that sounds? < Sorry for that.
Do you realize how much your juice will cost to steep in a heated clothes dryer? And which clothes dryer do you have that can be set to run all night? Just curious because I've never seen one that can do that.
Do you also realize that low heat on a clothes dryer is close to 125 degrees? Good luck with your electricity bill.
Thanks for your suggestions and I hope you will be able to contribute in a politically correct manner to our unified goals of making good juice and helping others make good juice.
I rarely ever reply to such provocative posts such as yours because I don't like confrontation and I'm really not an expert on anything other than computers.
So please take my "advise" with a grain of salt.
For the record, read what I found regarding ultrasonics and molecular structure-
It sounds to me as if molecular structure would not be modified drastically as you stated.
But I only can go by what I have read.
Acoustic wavelength in liquids range from approx. 110 to 0.15mm for frequencies between 18kHz and 10Mhz. This is significantly above molecular dimensions. For this reason, there is no direct coupling of the acoustic field with molecules of a chemical species.
What I want to point out here is that virtually all of the practical knowledge about making juice one will find here was learned the hard way, through trial and error, and collaborative sharing is the best tool any of us has in our quests to make excellent juice. The experienced veterans such as Danny that take time to share their learning with us have put in a lot of work actually paying attention through all of those hours of trial and error, recording their observations, and trying new things.
Up until a few years ago the science/art/hobby of DIY e-juice did not exist, and whatever science and/or art that has been developed along the way was without the benefit of expensive labs, textbooks, or even formally established procedures. And I will reiterate that even for experienced mixers, I expect that developing a new recipe is not always easy and sometimes there can seem to be more error than trial (yes, I know that is technically impossible). But here is the one guiding principal that seems to always hold true: if you make juice that you like and use your nicotine safely, you are doing it right, whatever that may mean in this context. So to jump in and broadly proclaim that something a whole bunch of people have been doing successfully for quite a while is "wrong", well that seems kind of presumptuous to me, and perhaps a bit silly.
We could talk about the theoretical health effects of one mixing method over another, but it is just talk; none of it is established fact. In all seriousness, none of us can say that habitually inhaling any of these re-purposed food flavorings is healthy, in the long term, whether they have been altered by the mixing process or not. There is significant evidence that some ingredients are potentially unhealthy in the long term, but even that has not been proven with clinical trials. So, as far as I can see, there is no "last word" about any of it. People that read my posts may notice that many of the things I say are qualified to include a degree of imprecision and uncertainty. Almost, some, maybe, usually, possibly, as far as I can see....that is not just poor writing style; I am prepared to be challenged or even found wrong about all of it.
And another important point, in my opinion, is that many of us are experts at something, whether it be physics, chemistry, fluid mechanics, baking, tuning a piano, dog training, fixing cars, or whatever, but I suspect few of us are professional diplomats. So when we communicate, we should always remember that the way we type our thoughts can be interpreted somewhat differently than how we intend (there, I used an absolute). Reaching out for common ground is always preferable to bombast or callous remarks, because each one of us has an ego, whether we like to admit it or not, and egos are fragile things, whether we like to think so or not. And this is not a textbook or a classroom, it is a conversation. We can all learn from each other, but only when we treat each other with respect.
So Ernie, I appreciate your contribution to the discussion, but frankly I did find your tone a bit antagonistic and defensive. So that is my opinion, and I share it simply because I would like to see this great collaborative learning experience grow. I know that when I speak, my intent is sometimes misconstrued even though my words may state things correctly. Heck, I've been with my wife for 35 years, and we can miscommunicate quite ineffectively about the most mundane things.
Up until a few years ago the science/art/hobby of DIY e-juice did not exist, and whatever science and/or art that has been developed along the way was without the benefit of expensive labs, textbooks, or even formally established procedures. And I will reiterate that even for experienced mixers, I expect that developing a new recipe is not always easy and sometimes there can seem to be more error than trial (yes, I know that is technically impossible). But here is the one guiding principal that seems to always hold true: if you make juice that you like and use your nicotine safely, you are doing it right, whatever that may mean in this context. So to jump in and broadly proclaim that something a whole bunch of people have been doing successfully for quite a while is "wrong", well that seems kind of presumptuous to me, and perhaps a bit silly.
We could talk about the theoretical health effects of one mixing method over another, but it is just talk; none of it is established fact. In all seriousness, none of us can say that habitually inhaling any of these re-purposed food flavorings is healthy, in the long term, whether they have been altered by the mixing process or not. There is significant evidence that some ingredients are potentially unhealthy in the long term, but even that has not been proven with clinical trials. So, as far as I can see, there is no "last word" about any of it. People that read my posts may notice that many of the things I say are qualified to include a degree of imprecision and uncertainty. Almost, some, maybe, usually, possibly, as far as I can see....that is not just poor writing style; I am prepared to be challenged or even found wrong about all of it.
And another important point, in my opinion, is that many of us are experts at something, whether it be physics, chemistry, fluid mechanics, baking, tuning a piano, dog training, fixing cars, or whatever, but I suspect few of us are professional diplomats. So when we communicate, we should always remember that the way we type our thoughts can be interpreted somewhat differently than how we intend (there, I used an absolute). Reaching out for common ground is always preferable to bombast or callous remarks, because each one of us has an ego, whether we like to admit it or not, and egos are fragile things, whether we like to think so or not. And this is not a textbook or a classroom, it is a conversation. We can all learn from each other, but only when we treat each other with respect.
So Ernie, I appreciate your contribution to the discussion, but frankly I did find your tone a bit antagonistic and defensive. So that is my opinion, and I share it simply because I would like to see this great collaborative learning experience grow. I know that when I speak, my intent is sometimes misconstrued even though my words may state things correctly. Heck, I've been with my wife for 35 years, and we can miscommunicate quite ineffectively about the most mundane things.
It would seem that using a dryer would be wasting a lot of power and money running it for 4.5 hours. I imagine putting it in with each load of laundry you dry would make sense but would take a while unless you do several loads a day. Maybe using a crock pot or slow cooker to steep would be a more practical cost effective solution. Heating the mix to 150F for a few hours and giving it a good shake every hour would do the trick and cost far less then using a dryer.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked