• NewFC is now officially an archive. Please go to FuckCombustion for more information. If you have an account there, use it. If you changed your account name when you registered here, use your FC account. If you did not have an FC account, please register one. Thanks to everyone for their patience.

Ed's WoodScents Log Vape - Ed's TnT

Jardri

Almost something
Messages
10
Location
CIUDAD REAL (SPAIN)
This is cool my friend. Appreciate you sharing. Can you explain a bit more? Did you find that the dimmers output was not as consistent as the VVPS? What setting have you settled on?

I am curious because I only have the dimmer and have always felt It provided a great experience. I do have the new heater. I’m usually dialed in somewhere between 7 and 8.
I dont have a multimeter good enough to measure output consistency with 100% accuracy but It seemed stable to me. The difference might be explained with the noise an ac adapter has. Sorry this is beyond my english level so I cant make it clear, but if you compare the output charts of a regular wall plug vs a lab VVPS maybe you can figure out what I try to say.

Edit: some basic info Some Basic Principles in Choosing Your DC power Supply | GPS LIMITED
 

Jardri

Almost something
Messages
10
Location
CIUDAD REAL (SPAIN)
Allright but watch out! A cheap VVPS will have the exact same performance as the stock dimmer but with cool digital numbers.

In my case I was lucky to have an old trusty analog lab supply wich delivers ultra stable voltage. And even with this one differences in performance are so subtle that dont make up for the investment if you dont already have it.

Also it is important noting that my power supply consumes 100W which is like 20 times more than a wall plug and its bulky and heavy.

What I want to say is yes, the differences exist, yes, they are noticeable but overall the stock solution (wall plug + dimmer) is the most energy efficient one and the most practical for an everyday usage.
 

JEMSKU

Member
Messages
9
I've been using a 5/8" (9.5mm) mesh screen for a little over a month now, and I thought I'd share my thoughts given the hype around mesh screens.

I purchased these screens here at a cost of $8.99 CAD for 100. They are described as "premium stainless steel" but the grade is not advertised. Its mesh count is stated as 60, presumably threads per square inch. These are not the same size as the DDave mesh vapcap screens, but the cost is much much lower, especially in Canada. I believe the screens I purchased are actually the same size as the screens used for the ArGo.

The fit in my stainless steel tips is good. It is larger than the internal diameter of the tip, so it becomes concave when inserted. This keeps it secure without relying on the ridge intended to seat the original CCD. I think that the capacity of the tip is unchanged, as the void under the screen in the edge is compensated for the by the concavity into the air channel of the tip:

20200618_172254.jpg20200618_172219.jpg

I found the differences between the mesh screen and the stainless steel CCDs to be subtle at first. Airflow did in fact seem improved. I had hoped that the concave shape and resulting void beneath the screen in the edge of the bowl would improve airflow around the herb and subsequently solve the issue of unextracted bud in the edge that I had with the CCDs (admittedly I was never able to seat the CCDs in the ridge properly, it always just laid flay across the bottom of the bowl). To my disappointment, there was no difference in extraction.

I should explain this extraction 'problem' perhaps: When I debowl my tips, the AVB often comes out with a couple taps as a little clump. This clump appears to be quite light around the outside where it was in contact with the tip and screen compared to the exposed bud at the top. However, busting up this clump shows that the herb is in fact almost completely extracted, and even the bits that were in contact with the tip are fully extracted everywhere but the actual surface that was touching metal. I had only hoped to see that the underside of the clump, where it rests on the screen above the void in the edges, might come out dark as it does at the surface, but it does not. So, the extremely thorough extraction has not been improved upon, but this is where the woodscents falls to the classic vapcap heating method and nothing has changed here. IMO, conduction will always provide more thorough extraction, but the benefits of convection win.

Anyways, as I continued to use the mesh screen, the differences went from subtle to negligible. When I debowl my tips I use my MFLB brush in the tip probably 70% of the time, and I feel that it's realistic that any tip or bowl for any vape will eventually build up some residue. While I used the mesh screen in my WPA, I continued to use the direct draw stem with the 2017 SS tip and CCD that I had been using for some time already. I attempted to time this assessment for when I had run about as much bud through the mesh screen tip as I had for the CCD tip, as I use the WPA much more. It wasn't perfect, but both tips had more or less plateaued at at point where brushing out the tips would prevent more residue from accumulating, but unreachable holes and edges had filled.

When I took the tips for a clean, I saw that much more residue had built up on the mesh screen than the CCD. Most of this buildup was on the underside of the mesh, in the edge void, while the upper surfaces of both screens were kept quite clean by brushing. The center of the screens over the air channel of the tips had remained mostly clear on both tips:

20200618_162942.jpg20200618_162959.jpg

I didn't see a large different in particle filtration, as the air channel beneath both of the screens had a layer of debris and resin. This picture shows that the mesh screen tip had actually built up more, but I believe this may be because I had ran more material through the WPA at this point. Regardless, particle filtration definitely didn't seem to be improved (CCD tip on the bottom):

tips.jpg

At this stage, the tips and screens performed more or less identically. Airflow had evened out between the two. Extraction was a draw, as it was in the beginning. The initial period of high airflow was nice, but it faded quickly, and since the woodscents benefits from a very slow draw, I wasn't really able to enjoy it as much as I could have. I take good care of my gear, but I am not so committed to cleanliness and peak performance that I would ever find myself cleaning and changing the screen often enough to maintain this state of higher airflow.

My verdict, as far as performance and usage goes, is that it's a draw. I don't see mesh screens to be the performance gamechanger as I've read on vapor forums.

But, while I was wrapping up this assessment and cleaning, I was reminded of the value of the mesh screens when I realized I had lost my CCD. Big sad, as they do look pretty in the tips. Fortunately, I have nearly 100 mesh screens that were so cheap that I can basically start throwing dirty screens away instead of trying to scrub them clean, and not stress about losing a $3 springy disk, while having my tips perform and maintain essentially just as well as they did with the CCD. For that reason alone, I can recommend that people consider buying these instead of CCDs if they are needing replacements.

Happy vaping!
 

GoldenBud

Well-known Member
Messages
66
i am not going to compare it to the tinymight here
good call. not because it is not intersting, just because the chase after fresh batteries each time Vs a device which is plugged into the wall and working as good as the TM , sounds like a good plan overall, so it has its advantage for sure. micro bowl also which produces clouds also sounds perfect so I'm happy that you're happy man, it looks awesome tho! :tup:
 
Top Bottom