A better nicotine delivery system - oxidation vaporizer

J

jcc

Registered Senior Member
I am a heavy smoker, 40 + years smoker, 4 packs Marlboro red a day down to 1 pack ryo. 3 years ago started vaping using hot air produced from a lighter and my pipe.

I learned vapor is much cleaner than smoke therefore healthier. But the buzz is not as good as smoking. That’s why few smokers converted to vaper even all kinds of e-cigs and vapes out there for so long.

Then I discovered vapor is pure nicotine, smoke contains oxidized nicotine. Oxidized nicotine vapor tastes much better than pure nicotine vapor and gives super buzz.

All vaporizers produce pure vapor, pure vapor is not oxidized, it tastes different and gives you different high than oxidized vapor as when you smoking. To get oxidized vapor, you need to heat vapor to flash point. So far no vaporizer able to do it. You need a vaporization chamber to vaporize material to produce vapor, then you need an oxidation chamber to oxidize that vapor to produce oxidized vapor.

I invented a tool to produce oxidized vapor, called oxidation vaporizer. A glass mouthpiece connects to a brass tube, load herb in the front part of the brass tube, heat the brass tube to 300 f to produce vapor, then heat the rear part of the brass tube to 500 f to oxidize that vapor, inhale oxidized vapor from the mouthpiece. Because brass has good heat conductivity, the heat from rear part brass tube heats up the herb in front part to keep producing vapor, you only need one flame to operate. If you want vaping high, simply only heat the loaded part.

My feeling/experience about herbs, 1 to 10 scale.
Smoking = taste 1, buzz 7, usage 5, health 1.
Vaping = taste 3, buzz 5, usage 4, health 8.
Oxi vaping = taste 10, buzz 10, usage 10, health 9.

DIY is easy.

80 mm long glass mouth piece, 8 mm OD. 4 mm or 5 mm ID.
40 mm long brase/silver/gold tube, 8 mm ID, .25 mm wall.

Load/push tobacco into the 10 mm long tip part of the brass tube, heat the rear part of the brass tube till you see white smoke come into the glass tube, start inhale and adjust heating time and inhaling speed, you want the vapor to be oxidized before inhale it. Easy to tell by taste, you won't miss it.

I am so much happier smoker now, hope the same to every smoker!

Vaping industry should use the same principle to make e-powered device to help smoker.

Med industry should do some research on oxidized nicotine gum etc.

Demo video
 
I could see someone wanting to use their herbal medication in this way. But tobacco? I don't think nicotine has any benefits to your health.
 
zgmc said:
I could see someone wanting to use their herbal medication in this way. But tobacco? I don't think nicotine has any benefits to your health.
Click to expand...
Nicotine is a mood leveler. If you're a little too up it brings you down; if you're a little too down it brings you up. And the beauty of this system is that you don't have to have enough self-awareness to decide which way you have to go!

This is what has made it so popular. The native people of what is now the USA had tobacco for millennia, and some tribes considered it sacred. When the European destroyers arrived, tobacco was one of the very first things they took home. Or course their ancestors had been distilling alcohol since the Paleolithic Era and by the Colonial Era it was in virtually worldwide usage, but they were delighted to have this new psychoactive drug.

The Europeans discovered caffeine (in coffee, which originated in Ethiopia) at about the same time as tobacco. They could not drink water because all of their rivers were polluted since the demise of the well-administered Roman Empire, so they had been drinking beer, which helps explain the Dark Ages: everybody was drunk. When coffee came to Europe, the Renaissance followed quickly. The Royal Society, England's society for science and scientists, was founded in a coffee house.

Opium was in wide use in much of Asia--usually by smoking, although the Europeans eventually separated out the active ingredient, which Bayer A.G. patented and gave the trademark "Heroin--it makes you feel like a hero".

And of course cannabis grew wild in Central America, and the coca plant in the Andes. The local people noticed that their llamas stopped to munch on it, then returned to work with new vigor, so they decided to try it too.

There are quite a few other natural sources of psychoactive drugs, such as peyote, "magic" mushrooms, and qat.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jcc
Fraggle Rocker said:
Nicotine is a mood leveler. If you're a little too up it brings you down; if you're a little too down it brings you up. And the beauty of this system is that you don't have to have enough self-awareness to decide which way you have to go!

This is what has made it so popular. The native people of what is now the USA had tobacco for millennia, and some tribes considered it sacred. When the European destroyers arrived, tobacco was one of the very first things they took home. Or course their ancestors had been distilling alcohol since the Paleolithic Era and by the Colonial Era it was in virtually worldwide usage, but they were delighted to have this new psychoactive drug.

The Europeans discovered caffeine (in coffee, which originated in Ethiopia) at about the same time as tobacco. They could not drink water because all of their rivers were polluted since the demise of the well-administered Roman Empire, so they had been drinking beer, which helps explain the Dark Ages: everybody was drunk. When coffee came to Europe, the Renaissance followed quickly. The Royal Society, England's society for science and scientists, was founded in a coffee house.

Opium was in wide use in much of Asia--usually by smoking, although the Europeans eventually separated out the active ingredient, which Bayer A.G. patented and gave the trademark "Heroin--it makes you feel like a hero".

And of course cannabis grew wild in Central America, and the coca plant in the Andes. The local people noticed that their llamas stopped to munch on it, then returned to work with new vigor, so they decided to try it too.

There are quite a few other natural sources of psychoactive drugs, such as peyote, "magic" mushrooms, and qat.
Click to expand...
Nice read, cool.
 
Rather than spending money funding research on more advanced vaporization techniques, more money should be spent on anti-smoking ad campaigns. People who have made the conscious decision to begin smoking did so acknowledging the consequences. Nicotine additives to help recovering smokers is NOT a solution, it's just a healthier delivery of an addictive substance. The existing methods to quit smoking work well enough, the only requirement is dedication and willpower.
 
spidergoat said:
Oxidation is exactly what vaporization is intended to prevent.
Click to expand...

vaporization is intended to prevent plant material under combustion produced smoke. if pure nicotine vapor could satisfy smoker, why is e-cig not working to 99% smoker?
 
If you are oxidizing a nicotine infused liquid, it's the same as burning it. And who knows what's in there. This could be much more dangerous than smoking plant material.
 
spidergoat said:
If you are oxidizing a nicotine infused liquid, it's the same as burning it. And who knows what's in there. This could be much more dangerous than smoking plant material.
Click to expand...

i am oxidizing pure nicotine vaporized from nature tobacco, are you blind?
 
I don't believe you. Pure nicotine is a bitter tasting liquid, and would not be pleasant to vaporize, besides being quite dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Adverse effects[edit]
Vascular system[edit]

Possible side effects of nicotine.
Nicotine increases blood pressure and heart rate.[30] Nicotine can also induce potentially atherogenic genes in human coronary artery endothelial cells.[31] Microvascular injury can result through its action on nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs).[32]
Carcinogen[edit]
Nicotine is not regarded as a carcinogen.[33] The IARC has not evaluated nicotine in its standalone form or assigned it to an official carcinogen group. While no epidemiological evidence supports that nicotine acts as a carcinogen in the formation of human cancer, research over the last decade has identified nicotine's indirect involvement in cancer formation in animal models and cell culture.[34][35][36] Nicotine increases cholinergic signalling (and adrenergic signalling in the case of colon cancer[37]), thereby impeding apoptosis (programmed cell death), promoting tumor growth, and activating growth factors and cellular mitogenic factors such as 5-LOX, and EGF. Nicotine also promotes cancer growth by stimulating angiogenesis and neovascularization.[38][39] In one study, nicotine administered to mice with tumors caused increases in tumor size (twofold increase), metastasis (nine-fold increase), and tumor recurrence (threefold increase).[40] N-Nitrosonornicotine (NNN), classified by the IARC as a Group 1 carcinogen, has been shown to form in vitro in amounts less than 0.01% the active substance, when human saliva is incurbated with nornicotine.[41]
Nicotine stimulates angiogenesis and promotes tumor growth and atherosclerosis.[42]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...3fgTlRlz1UaH8-cOA&sig2=9xfxgsENlrZkcY3XiLg_zQ
 
Although smoking can be connected to many negative effects, these negative effect never occur, all together in very many people, nor do their occur separately, in all people. More smokers don't get any of these effects, than are people who will get some of them. Statistics can be misleading when not interpreted and presented properly. The third leading cause of death in America are hospitals. One is more likely to die of a hospital than of a cigarette. It is all how you spin the data.

Another way to look at nicotine, is connected to it being a natural drug, where a safe dosage has not been defined by the FDA, due to politics and business. Say a person smokes one pack of cigarettes a day, which is twenty cigarettes. Since this is a drug, that person has taken twenty doses of this over the counter drug in one day.

How many other medicines, connected to the over the counter and/or the prescription markets, at the level of twenty doses a day, would be harmful? If you took 20 aspirins a day, or 20 Claritin a day, adverse effects would occur much sooner than a pack of cigarettes a day. One may go twenty years with the cigarettes, but only weeks or months with aspirin until your stomach is ulcered. Maybe a safe dose level needs to be defined, just like any other over the counter or prescription medication.

Too many people have been working under the political assumption, zero nicotine is the only safe dose. All medications have side effects, even at the proper dose. Some bodies are reactive to all things. The zero only dose assumption for nicotine has been indirectly proven, flawed. For example, the assumed harm, due to second hand smoke, was proven to be erroneous, by large studies that there were trying to prove second hand smoke was harmful. The reason this assumption did not pan out, is the dose that one gets, through second hand smoke, turned out to be safe.

Say we took all dosage information off all drugs and let people decide for themselves, like we do with cigarettes. Many people will begin with small does, but many will soon upscale due to the subjective feeling they need more to get the job done. Information helps the mind, which is why other medications tell the safe dosage, and side effects that will occur in some people.
 
wellwisher said:
Although smoking can be connected to many negative effects, these negative effect never occur, all together in very many people, nor do their occur separately, in all people. More smokers don't get any of these effects, than are people who will get some of them. Statistics can be misleading when not interpreted and presented properly. The third leading cause of death in America are hospitals. One is more likely to die of a hospital than of a cigarette. It is all how you spin the data.
Click to expand...

Strangely enough, I agree. I had a rather eye opening event about this. A dear friend died of breast cancer a few years ago, and she had been a smoker but had quit smoking about 20 years before her cancer appeared. Her death was attributed to smoking even though there was no evidence that it had any contribution to her cancer but the policy is to that if you smoked and you get cancer (and probably other illnesses) your cause of death is due to smoking.

Talk about spin.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top