Im sorry but your tests are wrong. He may have reviewed your protocol, but not your actual tests.
These were strong words my friend. Nothing in your response backs up your contention.
I use the same Wizard Labs test kit everyone else does.
It is a good "rough" test that is essentially a commercialized version of
DVap's original method published back in 2009, which DVap himself (an accredited Chemist) says is only accurate to within 10%. The margin of error of that test kit/method is greater than the amount of potency loss I measured so you cant reasonably use that test kit as a basis for saying "my tests are wrong". I estimate the accuracy of my testing apparatus at +/- 2%, combine that with averaging three tests together and I estimate the accuracy at better than +/- 1%.
At the smaller sample size used, and by applying HCL with a syringe rather than a burrette, it is considerably less precise than the method I am using. My larger 5ml sample size is simply mathematically more accurate because it requires more HCL to protonate the nicotine. Using a syringe for applying drops of HCL introduces more variability than a burette. Lets face it, a burrette with .1ml markings is much easier to read, and more precise than drops from a 3ml syringe. I have the Wiz Labs kit, but I didnt want to accept +/- 10% accuracy when diluting very strong (ie pure) nic concentrates, so I acquired the burrette and magnetic stirrer to achieve better accuracy.
I test a 60ml bottle plain VG and nic everytime I crack open a new Nic order. After that I dont do so
IMHO, unless you test a heated sample, and an unheated sample, from the exact same "Lot", on the same day, using the same test method, then you dont have a conclusive test. Given the amount of judgement involved interpreting color, and measuring with a syringe, a single test can be misleading, best practice dictates doing multiple tests to ensure repeatability.
Actually my testing does "jive" with this test, in fact he showed a larger loss of potency than I did! I agree, his results are far from conclusive, especially since there was no uncooked control sample (from the same batch of juice) to establish a baseline. However, even if we assume his test is accurate, if you do the math he is demonstrating over a 16% loss of potency! "a drop of .1% or 1mg/mL of nicotine" divided by the original "0.6%(6mg/mL) nicotine" is a 16.6% loss of potency.
As you said, the spectroanalysis might not represent nic strength, unless nic is represented by one of the wavelengths. It is notable that the transmittance is lower across the whole spectrum for the heated sample. So if nic is represented by a specific wavelength, it would be lower than the untreated samples.
Yes, it was Kurt who did the coil testing. Not really relevant to steeping though.
I hear you, but to me this is purely anecdotal. "So and so said they got this" doesnt really prove anything without hard data to back it up. Were they employing proper methodology in their tests? Were they being objective? Were they testing juice that had other additives that might have altered the alkalinity?
What I was trying to do was apply a "best practice" analytical approach to definitively answer some of these questions one way or another. I really didnt care what the results were, I just want to know the facts, and cut through the myth and the anecdotal.
I am an Engineer, not a Chemist, but my training tells me that a proper test should always include
- A control sample to establish a baseline for whatever method of testing is used. I.e. a sample from the exact same lot that has not been processed or altered that can be subjected to the exact same testing method. This establishes a "baseline" to which the other results can be compared.
- Testing multiple iterations of the same sample ensures the repeatability of the test and eliminates possible testing/human error.
- The best test equipment you can afford. The higher the accuracy of your testing equipment, the more dependable your results.
- Employing "best practice" techniques in your testing.
I documented employing all of the above in my blog post, I stand behind my results.........
