Re: MAPS: Re: Water Pipe/Vaporizer Study Revisited

["<\"predator\">" <predator@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Hi All
> 
> The comments on optimal bong design reminded me of the thoughts I have had
> on the subject in my more 'meditative' moments. Someone commented that
> some sort of screen would be useful, in order to minimise the size of the
> bubbles as they pass through the water.

A straightforward application of this is the typical aerator stone as used
in fishtanks. These do require additional effort to pump a gas through, as
they have a fairly small pore size (they are sintered sand or some
equivalent thereof), though I guess you could simply use lots of them in
parallel via some kind of gas manifold.  Additionally, the tarry products
in the smoke will require cleaning and can be expected to block the
aerator stone fairly rapidly.

> A concept from applied chemistry
> which is pertinent to bong design is that of 'theoretical stages', the
> number of times a system must be brought to equilibrium in order to
> achieve the desired transfer of component A from phase 1 to phase 2.  This
> is used in the design of industrial distilation columns and gas scrubbing
> units. The most common design is to have numerous plates with fine holes,
> so the gas has to come to equilibrium with the liquid each time it passes
> through. The use of baffles to divert the gas through a zig zag path can
> minimise the height of the column, or bong.

I imagine there are plenty of other cheap alternatives for increasing path
size. Stainless steel wool scourers can be obtained at the supermarket,
and would act adequately as packing in such a situation, providing a large
surface area, easy cleaning, inertness to smoke and also good
thermal coupling (the metal is conductive) which would cool the material
going through. I might also suggest ball bearings, an experimental
material with the additional advantage that you can vary the size you do
and the length of the column to achieve a product which interests you.
Cleaning is easy and they are pretty cheap too.

> It is thus possible to achieve
> the same degree of smoke cleansing in a single, small bong as in a more
> elaborate multichambered version. 

Yes. 

> The original post, which envisaged tampering with the solvent properties
> of the liquid appealed to me greatly, as I too have been through the same
> thoughts, though sadly have not yet embarked on any experiments! The
> temperature is key however - gas solubility in a liquid increases with
> decreasing temperature, so iced water is a simple but effective measure.

You also have the additional problems of solvent flammability and
vapour toxicity to avoid in the circumstances of use.

> While on the solvent properties tip, why not go one stage further and pass
> the smoke through a slurry of activated particles? If the harmful and
> desirable components of the smoke were well established, could the surface
> of clay, charcoal, or something similar be modified, eg by addition of
> polymer, to selectively bind the harmful components?

I imagine so, though these are likely to be similar to the THC and
cannabinoid analogues you seek to permit through the system. Cost also
becomes a significant factor, and not one which the average cone puller
really wants to negotiate. Hence my suggestion for the cheaply available 
aforementioned items. 

> Just a thought.
> 
> Gavin.
> 
<predator>


------------------
MAPS-Forum@xxxxxxxx, a member service of the Multidisciplinary Association
for Psychedelic Studies (to become a member, see www.maps.org/memsub.html).
To [un]subscribe, email the message text,
[un]subscribe maps-forum youraddress to majordomo@xxxxxxxx