Right To Vape

Hi Guys

Lacey and Julie both brought it to my attention that there's still quite a bit of confusion regarding what the differences are between Combustion (Smoking) and Vaporization (Vaping) in the world outside of vaping.

As much as I've tried, and I've tried, I still couldn't narrow down the explanation in layman's terms to just the one paragraph; without making it sound nebulous.

However, this is for you guys. If the following does not explain the differences between the two, then please, please, please (with cherries on top) give feedback. Every comment is valuable because, if you all don't "get it", I still need to keep working on it!

Ultimately, this information will be distributed and used to educate groups who we'd rather see as allies, rather than foes; like some of the anti-smoking lobbies, who currently tar vaping with the same brush as smoking. Some of this ignorance simply comes from a lack of understanding regarding the differences between the two. Successfully communicating this distinction to the people whose support we could do with, will be a very important "critical mass" step, bigots aside. ASH in the UK are turning out to be quite supportive of the PV because they are starting to see its potential for what it truly is; which is as a positive harm-reduction device (The Prof's kindly posted the details here http://www.righttovape.com/legal-status-and-news/ash-uk/msg13695/?topicseen#msg13695). As we all well know, not all action groups are quite as "enlightened" ...yet!

So, here goes...

The Differences Between Combustion and Vaporization

Combustion and vaporization are often confused but they are distinctly different processes with two very different outcomes. When a solid (or a liquid) is vaporized, energy is applied to change the physical properties of the chemical so that it becomes a gas. Its chemical properties, however, do not change. Water being boiled in a kettle is a good example because the heating element provides the energy to turn the water (liquid) into steam (gas). The resultant gas is not a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen as separate chemicals, as the gas retains all the chemical properties it possessed when it was a liquid. As the steam cools (when energy is no longer being applied), it simply reverts back to what it started out as, which is water. Whilst the physical properties of water are altered during this process, its chemical properties remain exactly the same. This is how Personal Vaporizers and electronic cigarettes operate.

With combustion, sufficient energy is provided to completely destroy the starting material to form something entirely new. One only has to think of tobacco or petrol / gasoline as starting materials. As they burn, enough energy is applied to break up the chemicals that made them what they are; resulting in a mixture of completely different materials to those started out with. Simplistically, some of these new chemicals formed during combustion are “intermediate” compounds; meaning that they (themselves) can also form new substances when they come into contact with each other, including some of those molecules that make up our cell tissues. Depending on other conditions, the exact nature of these new chemicals formed, and their ratios, can be difficult to predict exactly. Using cigarettes as an example: When a cigarette burns, the tobacco solid gets destroyed by the energy applied (in the form of heat) and it becomes a mixture of volatile (reactive) and inert (non-reactive) gases and particulates (microscopic solids) in the “intermediate” stages; resulting in ash and oily products at the final stages of this process. The products formed in the intermediate and final stages of these complex chemical reactions can be very injurious to health, which is why second hand smoke is rightly considered as harmful. Combustion is termed a "destructive" process, whilst vaporisation is termed as "non-destructive".

In summary: With combustion, the starting products and end products are not the same because the energy supplied causes a chemical reaction to take place. With vaporization, the starting materials and end materials are exactly the same because the energy supplied does not result in a destructive chemical reaction. This makes the “mist” created by a Personal Vaporizer far less injurious to health than the smoke formed by burning a cigarette.

If all those that read this understand it... Result!  

Ta ta

J  

That's an awesome explanation...

Thank you!

I love this part:  "Combustion is termed a "destructive" process, whilst vaporisation is termed as "non-destructive"."  It's catchy!

Thanks Lacey 

Bottom line, that is exactly what the two processes are...

However, and I hope you get me... I'm not happy with it, having now gone back to it. You are clearly as bright as a button and as sharp as a pin and that will greatly influence how easy it is for you to understand it, as are the majority on this forum... but that would lose somone like my Pa. He'd have fallen asleep before getting half way through!  In fact, I think you have already given yourself the description you were looking for in its most explicit and simple terms. It may by that the destructive / chemical reaction and non-destructive / no chemical reaction statements are simple enough to highlight the differences to the majority of people...

Ahhh, what do I know...

It's 2 am here and it's probably time I hit the sack!

It's best I say night-night now before I start talking complete gibberish!

Night-night and thanks for giving me some good material to read today

J 

 

Perhaps a few catchy examples as you go along (I do find it clear enough, but some 'juiciness' and some 'aha - I know that!' moments inbetween can perhaps be just the bridge needed to keep people interested and reading). It can be as simple as 'you will never get a fried egg back into a raw egg, it has solidified' or 'try to catch the gasses from a candle, and make a wick and wax out of it again... good luck!' - or at least examples on or near to that level that do fit in exactly?

Hope y'all don't mind but used it in my signature. More of this to be spread around the better, it really explains a lot and makes one stop and ponder for a second. Doc great write up, I can't do that without spending an hour on it.
Lacey Thanks for sharing your thoughts at Indy and gettin us all thinking about perceptions.

Aspen - Perception is what it is all about.  And... it was interesting but this "quit or die" person sitting next to me also heard me say "under my breath"... "If this is about second hand smoke, then why aren't we discussing OTHER things that burn that people don't know about?"  Then... she goes "What?"  I looked at her and said "Incense?  Studies show burning incense can cause cancer over long term exposure?"  Her eyes BULGED!

It is my estimation that many people who start off in the anti-smoking movement start off because they have been affected negatively by a smoker and the resulting second hand smoke... and as I have learned in the past year, I knew NOTHING about combustable products from cigarettes to campfires to fireplaces to incense.  It is my estimation that these persons with good intentions, get lost in the anger side and the science is forgotten.

If we can just tap back into the good intentions they started out with... we might be able to make some headway.

Doc -  A little secret:  My junior year of high school my chem teacher approached me and said he would be willing to give me a C if I took art my senior instead.  So I took the offer.      I understood exactly what you wrote.  From an Art Major's perspective (and we are not usually the science type except when it comes to drawing science...) It makes complete sense.

Well, I was not a chemistry major in college . . . I was an English major . . . and I understood the article perfectly.   

Katink, as always, has a good idea about perhaps adding in some more examples.  I found the example you used of water boiling really helped me visualize what you were saying.

I'm also wondering if perhaps certain words could be bolded to draw attention.  For example, you could bold one of the statements about how the CHEMICAL properties remain the same.  That to me is the key . . . physical properties may change, but the chemical properties do not. 

Wonderful piece, Doc.   

Thank you for the very valuable input guys! 

Yup, it's a work in progress and Katink's suggestions are "bang on the money". The more simple it is for all to understand, the better. I have given much thought to this piece since I saw Nate's good post and, really, vaporization as we know it in e-cigs is more like partial vaporization than full-on gas formation. He was absolutely correct when he said it was more like a mist than an actual gas. I don't want to confuse matters so I'm going to give it more thought. I do want our statements to be thoroughly accurate and reflect fact... for all our sakes.

Still... with all the support we are giving each other; I'm sure we'll end up with something we are all happy with. At the end of the day, it's all about the collective effort...

Ta ta for now

J 

Excellent job, 26th! Thanks for this!

I have a follow-up question for you. Can you explain, then, the difference between "atomizer" and "vaporizer" for our purposes? Is the atomizer in our PVs synonymous with "vaporizer," essentially? In other words, the atomizer describes a mechanical device that turns liquid into vapor, as opposed to having anything to do with degrees of heat or changes of chemical structure and other stuff that I have no idea what I'm talking about? 

For our purposes, think of "atomizer" as the element in the personal "vaporizer" that uses heat to turn the liquid into a vapor.

Will that work?

Hi Guys, 

VocalEK has beat me to the punch! Yup, the PV is the delivery device and the atomiser is an integral component of the PV; used to vapourise the e-liquid. Strictly speaking, atomiser is a bad choice of terminology. "Atomisation" generally refers to the total separation of all atoms in a chemical substance or compound. As an example, this would mean reducing Water into its constituent O and H atoms. This in reality, simply doesn't happen. Nate also pointed out, quite rightly, that e-liquids never actually reach their full vaporised state; merely partial vaporisation, which results in the higher boiling point compounds being delivered as fine mist.

Cheers peeps!   

J 

Thanks to both of you. That was my understanding ... just wanted to make sure.