types of inhaling...

[JCinFLA]

I'm 1 of quite a few vapers, who only inhales into the mouth and the back of the throat, and then exhales through the mouth and/or nose. So I guess that would be called a MTT inhale.

It's how a MTL vaper would vape, if instead of taking that second little inhale to pull what's in their mouth (and the back of their throat) into their lungs...they exhaled it through their mouth or nose then instead. Keeping it in for just a second or 2 and then exhaling it, definitely does allow the nic to be absorbed, too.

When I smoked for 42+ years I inhaled into my lungs. But since starting vaping in Nov. 2013...I've always vaped the way I do now. Was told when I first started that the nic in vapor is more readily absorbed in the sinus cavities and by the cheek linings, while the nic in smoke is more readily absorbed by the cells of the lungs. It works, because I've had no problem getting my "nic fix" that way...with just 6mg eliquids, (until this May when I bumped it to 7mg to get my metabolism back to "my normal" where it was before I quit smoking). I've never even once wanted a cigarette since switching to vaping only in Jan. 2014. So I'm a firm believer in the MTT method working!

IMO, whatever inhale method works for each person is great, if it's doing the job of keeping them smoke free.

 

[vapdivrr]

True. Nic gets absorbed thru mucus membranes which is why gum works for some people. It don't work for me tho. I need another hit, baby! [emoji38]

I wonder , or do you know, if a lung draw gets more nic absorbed compared to just mouth? Just curious as I could never just do a JIM (just in mouth) draw

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[stols001]

I think NTL for the win!

It's not necessarily a waste of juice, depending on strength/whatnot. That said, I'd think you'd have to have a fairly high nic level to make that work, but not *necessarily*

I am going to be having oral surgery and will be using the Nose to throat to nose technique (no suction in my mouth, I've tested it, and it's a fairly strong hit. NLN? or just CRAZY?

Anna

 

[Eskie]

I wonder , or do you know, if a lung draw gets more nic absorbed compared to just mouth? Just curious as I could never just do a JIM (just in mouth) draw

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

It should. More surface area to absorb through, with lots of blood flow to pick it up when you inhale to lung than just your mouth.

 

[mattiem]

I'm 1 of quite a few vapers, who only inhales into the mouth and the back of the throat, and then exhales through the mouth and/or nose. So I guess that would be called a MTT inhale.

It's how a MTL vaper would vape, if instead of taking that second little inhale to pull what's in their mouth (and the back of their throat) into their lungs...they exhaled it through their mouth or nose then instead. Keeping it in for just a second or 2 and then exhaling it, definitely does allow the nic to be absorbed, too.

When I smoked for 42+ years I inhaled into my lungs. But since starting vaping in Nov. 2013...I've always vaped the way I do now. Was told when I first started that the nic in vapor is more readily absorbed in the sinus cavities and by the cheek linings, while the nic in smoke is more readily absorbed by the cells of the lungs. It works, because I've had no problem getting my "nic fix" that way...with just 6mg eliquids, (until this May when I bumped it to 7mg to get my metabolism back to "my normal" where it was before I quit smoking). I've never even once wanted a cigarette since switching to vaping only in Jan. 2014. So I'm a firm believer in the MTT method working!

IMO, whatever inhale method works for each person is great, if it's doing the job of keeping them smoke free.

I am another one that has always vaped like that. I have always called mine MTN (mouth through nose) though. I managed to kick 45+ years of smoking to the curb with this method so I wouldn't consider it a waste of juice.

edited to add: I did manage to get nic sick a time or two with this method in the beginning so I would say that most of the nic does get absorbed just fine without going into the lungs.

 

[stols001]

Never mind

 

[vapdivrr]

I don't know that we need to evaluate methods quite that much, on thinking about it further. As long as what you're doing works FOR YOU, and you're able to manage your juice consumption and whatever nic level, it's fine. Must a millionfold agree that WHATEVER method you are using your e-cig, if it's working for you, don't sweat it. I'd be okay going through 120 mls of juice a day (if it were necessary for me to stop) as long as I'm not smoking cigs. I wouldn't be HAPPY, I'd experiment, and MTL works great for *me*, but if clouds and DL were better for ME, I'd happily eat the juice costs.

I think it's a false economy to say that one way is "better" and one "worse", as long as it's working for you. If it's not, this thread might be one for folks to read over who are having trouble getting enough nicotine, as apparently, there are almost as many ways to vape as there are tank setups

Anna

Who is saying one way is better in this thread? The only thing I'm seeing is a regular discussion on different types of inhales and there hasn't been one sentence saying one shouldn't be used, or my way is better...

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[stols001]

For mouth-only inhale, what about WOJ for waste of juice.




j/k

I did not notice Mr. Mann was kidding until I quoted it.

 

[mikepetro]

I find it interesting in light of some other work I am doing. How does each method affect airflow across the cool, and there for affect cool temp.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

 

[vapdivrr]

Uh, it started here, and then I believe that there was discussion of whether the technique works, the consensus being that it did. So, calling something a waste of juice as an acronym does seem to imply that it's a "useless" technique. Whether it uses more juice or not, if it's working for you, was my main point.

Anna

Ok one time then. It just seemed by your post, that there was this back and fourth disagreement on the topic...

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[stols001]

No actually, vapdivrr, I didn't notice the J/k at the end of the post, which I did not notice the first time, I will remove my rant

Anna

 

[vapdivrr]

I find it interesting in light of some other work I am doing. How does each method affect airflow across the cool, and there for affect cool temp.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Not sure whether it's method , but more to do with lenght of draw and AF of tank?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[vapdivrr]

No actually, vapdivrr, I didn't notice the J/k at the end of the post, which I did not notice the first time, I will remove my rant

Anna

It's all good[emoji4]

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[mikepetro]

Not sure whether it's method , but more to do with lenght of draw and AF of tank?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

On a given atty, volume and velocity are the two user induced variables which affect coil temp. What I was driving at was that these two variables can be quite different with different "puff methods".

For example, on the same exact atty, I measured DTL hits as being 50-100 degrees cooler at the coil than a MTL hit.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

 

[vapdivrr]

For example, on the same exact atty, I measured DTL hits as being 50-100 degrees cooler at the coil than a MTL hit.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

So on the same atty, same coil, same wattage and AF ? And the only difference was one was dtl and one was mtl? If so that is interesting. I know the dtl would have more air across the coil because it's a longer pull, but I would have thought they would balance out because the dtl coil would be fired maybe twice as long as the mtl coil...


Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[mikepetro]

So on the same atty, same coil, same wattage and AF ? And the only difference was one was dtl and one was mtl? If so that is interesting. I know the dtl would have more air across the coil because it's a longer pull, but I would have thought they would balance out because the dtl coil would be fired maybe twice as long as the mtl coil...


Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Yep, I got a graph showing somewhere.

Same atty, everything, captured by a thermocouple on the could. I did 3 mtl hits, then 2 dtl hits, back to back, the graph showed it clearly. Now this was on a VW mod.

I suspect it was because dtl is such a higher volume and velocity.

Sent from phone, please excuse fat thumbs and autocorrect.

 

[mikepetro]

Also could be increased juice flow too, I guess.

Sent from phone, please excuse fat thumbs and autocorrect.

 

[vapdivrr]

Yep, I got a graph showing somewhere.

Same atty, everything, captured by a thermocouple on the could. I did 3 mtl hits, then 2 dtl hits, back to back, the graph showed it clearly. Now this was on a VW mod.

I suspect it was because dtl is such a higher volume and velocity.

Sent from phone, please excuse fat thumbs and autocorrect.

Just something I never thought of I suppose, but I guess more air flow or faster air flow does it and like you said maybe a bit more juice.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Verb]

So on the same atty, same coil, same wattage and AF ? And the only difference was one was dtl and one was mtl? If so that is interesting. I know the dtl would have more air across the coil because it's a longer pull, but I would have thought they would balance out because the dtl coil would be fired maybe twice as long as the mtl coil...


Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Other way around in general. DTL uses a much shorter pull with a greater draw pressure. MTL uses a slow long draw.

 

[Eskie]

Other way around in general. DTL uses a much shorter pull with a greater draw pressure. MTL uses a slow long draw.

And here I am using a moderate pull slow draw and I think I'm vaping dtl.

Maybe instead of looking at airflow, watts, or time, look at it as mtl as a 2 step draw while dl is a 1 step draw. Then it's independent of all the other variables and strictly a style of inhaling the vaper finds most comfortable.