|
 notapillow
I want to be a fisherman
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 31,129
Loc: A rare and different tune
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
|
 BONG IS DONE! 
#2761995 - 06/03/04 11:40 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
heres a time line 
concept
half way there
THATS IT!  
althought the whole thing wreakes of epoxy puddy 
i hope it will air out by tomara 
--------------------
|
CaRnAgECaNdY
Tool's groupie
Registered: 04/09/04
Posts: 11,505
Loc: Billy Howerdel's closet 
Last seen: 9 months, 8 days
|
|
Well done my friend, when do we break it in?
--------------------
The secret to being funny is to say smart things stupidly, or is it stupid things smartly? Whatever..it's not rocket surgery...or something like that.
|
Phishgrrl
Walking in thetall trees...
Registered: 05/03/04
Posts: 5,079
Last seen: 18 years, 9 months
|
|
Nice job Pillow! Can I have a hit?
--------------------
Once in awhile you can get shown the light
In the strangest of places if you look at it right...
|
notapillow
I want to be a fisherman
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 31,129
Loc: A rare and different tune
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
|
Re: BONG IS DONE! [Re: Phishgrrl]
#2762028 - 06/03/04 11:49 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
NO!
 yez
im hoping it dosnt reak of epoxsy in the morning it smells soooo bad
--------------------
|
notapillow
I want to be a fisherman
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 31,129
Loc: A rare and different tune
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
|
|
hopfuly il break it in tomara wit lots of freinds
--------------------
|
 Le_Canard
The Duk Abides
Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
|
Let us know how she smokes! 
|
funkymonk
Get's down, withthe get-down.
Registered: 11/29/02
Posts: 8,160
Loc: saskatchewan
|
|
Flashback to grade 11, 
|
notapillow
I want to be a fisherman
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 31,129
Loc: A rare and different tune
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
|
Re: BONG IS DONE! [Re: funkymonk]
#2762054 - 06/04/04 12:03 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
shut up i dont have any money
plus just look at that vause
it was just beggin for it
--------------------
|
funkymonk
Get's down, withthe get-down.
Registered: 11/29/02
Posts: 8,160
Loc: saskatchewan
|
|
your a hundred percent right it's a beautiful vase...I just would of done it differently
bowl,female bong sleeve $4 from a headshop,a rubber washer .45 hardware store.
I wasn't knocking it though dude, It just reminded me of a couple years ago when me and my good friend would make bongs all the time..
|
fortytwo
Stranger
Registered: 06/03/04
Posts: 85
Loc: PDX
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
|
This is reminiscent of my bong-manufacture days that required trips to the plumbing aisle of now-obsolete hardware stores. Lead elbow joints and iron shafts...
Those were the days, when headshops had a one-hitter or two, maybe a dugout and some resonators, nothing more...
|
TheDude
is waiting forthe peak
Registered: 04/15/03
Posts: 2,876
|
|
haha nice pillow. this falls under the "MacGyver Smoker" category unless i stand corrected
--------------------
"this lebowski he called himself 'the dude'. now, 'dude', that's a name no one would self-apply where i come from but there was a lot about the dude that didn't make sense to me...."--the Stranger
|
CaRnAgECaNdY
Tool's groupie
Registered: 04/09/04
Posts: 11,505
Loc: Billy Howerdel's closet
Last seen: 9 months, 8 days
|
|
did you notice I said "WE"?
--------------------
The secret to being funny is to say smart things stupidly, or is it stupid things smartly? Whatever..it's not rocket surgery...or something like that.
|
filthysock
puresoul
Registered: 01/12/04
Posts: 2,080
Loc: Bergen, Norway
Last seen: 17 years, 9 months
|
|
HAHA!!! Thats a monsterfuker of a bong man, so cool! Shit like that makes me wanna smoke again... fuck the paranoia!
Looks like the tank of bongs.
--------------------
Magic mushrooms are not addictive, the shroomery is!
Edited by filthysock (06/04/04 08:13 AM)
|
Fungushungry
Addict
Registered: 07/17/02
Posts: 2,014
Loc: Whispering Winds
|
|
Thats something ive never down made my own bong.. it just got shoved up on my list!
Piller nice bong dude!
--------------------
"Early man walked away
As modernman took control
There mind's weren't all the same
And to conquer was their goal
So he built his great empire
And he slaughtered his own kind
He died a confused man
And killed himself in his own mind"
|
baraka
Registered: 07/15/00
Posts: 10,768
Loc: hyperspace
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
Get a female piece and acheap slide for 5 bucks and that bong will look 1000x better. The stem is too long.
How you clear it, is there a pull slide or carb? I cant tell.
Edit: you need a longer tube as well htat will probably splash. Next time try using a liter or the handle bottles of liqour to make one.
--------------------
This is the only time I really feel alive.
Edited by baraka (06/04/04 10:04 AM)
|
YouEnjoyMyself
PHiSH
Registered: 03/01/03
Posts: 8,127
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
|
Re: BONG IS DONE! [Re: baraka]
#2763102 - 06/04/04 11:50 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
yeah...if youc an scrougne up a few bucks get a female slide and a slide/bowl for a couple bucks at a headshop or something...it will look better, you won't taste any metal, and stuff..........but good job!
what did you use to support the slide?
--------------------
-Wash uffitze drive me to firenze
|
fearfect
Registered: 01/15/04
Posts: 1,845
Loc:
|
|
here's my baby  but i paid 40$ for her (the reason its tapered at the bottom is cause its an ICE BONG)
|
PuZuZu
Board Bum
Registered: 05/27/04
Posts: 671
Loc: Idaho (USA)
Last seen: 18 years, 7 months
|
|
those are awesome guys. be proud of your work.  stoners were always the productive ones. =)
--------------------
"If you worried about falling off the bike, you would never get on."
Lance Armstrong
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
|
how did you put the hole in the vase (for future reference)?
|
whiterabbit13
I'm late
Registered: 02/21/04
Posts: 1,360
Loc: Down the rabbit hole
Last seen: 18 years, 5 months
|
|
Clearing the chamber with that is like 2 hits. HAve a good time.
--------------------
|
vade
veteran
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 1,737
Loc: Columbus, OHIO
Last seen: 8 years, 22 days
|
|
hell yeah!
i think its time to try it out
--------------------
I've got this feeling that there's something that I missed...
|
trippysmurf
Smurfette'sSugar Daddy
Registered: 02/22/04
Posts: 195
Last seen: 18 years, 2 months
|
|
sweet dude! I heard bongs are worse for you than smoking joints, 'cause the water doesn't remove much tar, but it does remove THC from the smoke, so you have to smoke more for the same high, resulting in more exposure to the tar. (not that I care)
My point is: has anyone tried vaporizers? How are they?
--------------------
I like your Christ, but I do not like Christians - they are so unlike Christ. -Gandhi
|
notapillow
I want to be a fisherman
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 31,129
Loc: A rare and different tune
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
|
|
thanks guys
its a slide baraka
and i used my freinds sanding and wood shaping kit to drill the hole
just be carful
it took a long time
ya it does splash a bit
but i think it will work fine
il find out in about 20 min
--------------------
|
fearfect
Registered: 01/15/04
Posts: 1,845
Loc:
|
|
the hell? first of all, THC isnt water soluble. second of all what do you think filters out more tar, a whole bunch of water, or a whole bunch of nothing? thirdly, think about the amount of weed you usually smoke. a bowl is not much weed at all. but all the weed in a joint/blunt/sweet whatever is a helluva lot more then you would be smoking out of a bong.
|
trippysmurf
Smurfette'sSugar Daddy
Registered: 02/22/04
Posts: 195
Last seen: 18 years, 2 months
|
Re: BONG IS DONE! [Re: fearfect]
#2764910 - 06/04/04 10:58 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
You should do some research on it - NORML did a study to find these results. This article is from: http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v06n3/06359mj1.html
Marijuana Water Pipe and Vaporizer Study
[Revised February 2000]
Dale Gieringer, Ph.D.
California NORML, 2215-R Market St. Suite 278
San Francisco CA 94114 tel: (415) 563-5858
E-mail: canorml@igc.apc.org
September 21, 2000 update: MAPS and CA-NORML are sponsoring a new vaporizer study. Testing and data analysis have been completed. A detailed report will be issued soon. The design and cost of additional studies are currently being discussed with the analytical lab.
The new study is a $25,000 proof of principle study designed to determine if marijuana vaporizers can indeed reduce particulate matter and carbon monoxide as compared to the combustion of marijuana. We have a very high-tech lab doing the research, but unfortunately the lab wants to remain anonymous. They are concerned about becoming known as a place with marijuana (all they have is 5 grams!), but the major reason for their reluctance to get publicity is due to industrial espionage. They do lots of work for major pharmaceutical companies who want discretion, so they don't advertise. I was personally recommended to them by an organic chemistry company that is making psilocybin for MAPS for a U. of Arizona study of psilocybin in the treatment of OCD.
Anyway, the results of the vaporizer study do show substantial reductions in particulate matter and in carbon monoxide. I conceive of this study as contributing to the argument in favor of permitting patients to grow and use their own marijuana, instead of having to purchase patented, FDA-approved cannabinoid or marijuana-extract products from Unimed or GW Pharmaceuticals. Vaporizers are the only non-smoking marijuana delivery systems that can be used with home-grown marijuana. We are trying to create evidence to show that there is a favorable risk/benefit ratio from using high-potency marijuana in vaporizers.
The main tradeoffs that patients will face are slightly highly but probably not clinically significant health risks but lower price from high-potency marijuana delivered in vaporizers as compared to Unimed or GW products. Efficacy will probably be similar. The health effect of wealth (the impact on the health of patients from the extra money they save from using home-grown in vaporizers as compared to other products) will, perhaps, outweigh the additional health risks. This is all speculative and there is certainly a major need for FDA-approved products that can be paid for by insurance, since home-grown used with vaporizers will probably not become approved by FDA anytime soon, at least not in the current political climate.
Contrary to popular impression, waterpipes don't necessarily protect smokers from harmful tars in marijuana smoke, according to a new study sponsored by MAPS and California NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws). The reason is that waterpipes filter out more psychoactive THC than they do other tars, thereby requiring users to smoke more to reach their desired effect. The study does not rule out the possibility that waterpipes could have other benefits, such as filtering out gases, but it suggests that other methods, such as the use of high potency marijuana, vaporizers, or oral ingestion are needed to avoid harmful toxins in marijuana smoke.
Seven Devices Tested
The study, which was supported by the Drug Policy Foundation and private donors, was conducted at a research lab with expertise in the analysis of various chemical properties of tobacco and marijuana. Researchers tested the smoke from seven different sources: a regular rolled joint, a joint with a cigarette filter, three different waterpipes, and two vaporizers, designed to heat marijuana to a temperature where psychoactive vapors form without producing smoke. The waterpipes included a standard bong (Picture #1), a small portable device with a folding pipestem (Picture #6), and a battery-operated model with a motorized paddle to thoroughly mix the smoke in the water (Picture #3). The first vaporizer (Picture #5), commercially produced in Canada, consisted of a battery-powered metal hot plate inside a jar to trap the marijuana vapor. The second (Picture #4) was a homemade, hybrid apparatus, in which vapors were produced by a hot air gun and then drawn through a beaker of water, thereby combining vaporization with water filtration. The smoke was produced from standard NIDA-supplied marijuana drawn through a smoking machine adjusted to mimic the puff length of marijuana smokers.
Focus: Cannabinoid/Tar Ratio
The study focused on two key components of the smoke: (1) total solid particulates, or tars, which are noxious waste by-products of burning leaf like those from tobacco; and (2) cannabinoids, the chemicals distinctive to marijuana, including its major psychoactive ingredient, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and its two commonest chemical relatives, cannabinol (CBN) and cannabidiol (CBD), which are only weakly psychoactive but may have medical benefits.
Like tobacco, marijuana tars are rich in carcinogenic compounds known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are a prime culprit in smoking-related cancers. However, cannabinoids themselves are not carcinogenic. An obvious way to protect smokers' health is therefore to minimize the content of smoke tars relative to cannabinoids.
One way to do this is to increase the THC potency of the marijuana. Assuming smokers adjust their smoke intake to the cannabinoid dosage, the higher the concentration of cannabinoids, the lower the amount of tars they are likely to consume.
Another strategy is to try to reduce the tars in the smoke with some kind of filtering device. Obviously, this is beneficial only to the extent that THC isn't also reduced, thereby inducing users to smoke more to compensate. A major aim of the study was to determine the efficacy of various smoking devices at reducing the concentration of tars relative to cannabinoids. The performance of each device was accordingly rated in terms of the cannabinoid-to-tar ratio in its smokestream.
Joints and Waterpipes
Surprisingly, the unfiltered joint outperformed all devices except the vaporizers, with a ratio of about 1 part cannabinoids to 13 parts tar. This disturbingly poor ratio may be explained by the low potency of the NIDA-supplied marijuana used in the study, which was around 2.3%.
Disappointingly, waterpipes performed uniformly worse than the unfiltered joint. The least bad waterpipe, the bong, produced 30% more tar per cannabinoids than the unfiltered joint. Ironically, the pipe with the electric mixer scored by far the worst of any device. This suggests that water filtration is actually counterproductive, apparently because water tends to absorb THC more readily than noxious tars. Like the waterpipes, the cigarette filter also performed worse than the unfiltered joint, by about 30%. Researchers speculate this is because cannabinoids are exceptionally sticky and adhere to other solids. Hence, any filtration system that picks up particulates is likely also to screen out cannabinoids.
Vaporizers
The vaporizer results appeared more promising, but confusing. The two vaporizers were the only devices to outscore unfiltered joints in terms of raw cannabinoid/tar ratio. The electric hotplate vaporizer did best, with a performance ratio about 25% higher than the unfiltered joint. The hot air gun was just marginally superior, but might have done better had it not been for its water filtration component.
However, the situation was complicated by the fact that the cannabinoids produced by the electric hotplate vaporizer were unusually high in CBN, leaving 30% less THC as a percentage of the total cannabinoids than with the other smoking devices. Since CBN is not psychoactive like THC, recreational users might be expected to consume more smoke to make up for the deficit. (The situation may be different for medical users, who could experience other, medicinal benefits from CBN). For this reason, it seemed advisable to recompute the performance efficiencies of the vaporizers in terms of THC, rather than all cannabinoids. When this was done, the electric hotplate vaporizer turned out to have a lower THC/tar ratio than the unfiltered joint, while the hot air gun was still marginally higher.
The reason for the excess CBN from the hotplate vaporizer remains unexplained. Because CBN is produced from THC by chemical oxidation, it has been suggested that the device somehow exposed the sample to too much oxygen. However, there is no evidence that this was the case. As for the second, hybrid vaporizer, it seems likely that its performance could have been improved by deleting its water component.
The results clearly indicate that more developmental work needs to be done on vaporizers. Theoretically, an ideal vaporizer could minimize production of tars by holding the temperature above the point at which THC vaporizes, but below that where carcinogenic hydrocarbons are produced by combustion [Note] In practice, both vaporizers produced over ten times more tars than cannabinoids, indicating that there is plenty of room for improvement.
In the late 1970s, a vaporizer known as the Tilt appeared on the market. According to the manufacturer, laboratory tests showed that it released 80% more THC and 79% less tar than a regular pipe, a performance ratio almost ten times better than any observed in this study. It is to be hoped that these impressive results can be replicated in the future. Unfortunately, the Tilt was withdrawn from the market in the early 1980s due to the passage of anti-paraphernalia laws.
As for waterpipes, the prospects for improvement appear more dubious. It has been suggested that the performance of waterpipes could be improved by using liquids other than water or by changing the temperature of the liquid. However, it seems doubtful whether such tactics would circumvent the basic problem of separating the tars from the sticky cannabinoids.
Are Waterpipes Counterproductive?
The study results are obviously discomforting to waterpipe enthusiasts, many of whom prefer the cooler, milder smoke they produce, and have naturally assumed it is also more healthful. Unfortunately, however, the study indicates that waterpipes may actually be counterproductive in increasing consumption of carcinogenic tars.
Nonetheless, it is still premature to judge that waterpipes are actually unhealthful, since they may filter out other, non-solid smoke toxins occurring in the gas phase of the smoke, which was not analyzed in the study. Noxious gases known to occur in marijuana smoke include hydrogen cyanide, which incapacitates the lung's defensive cilia; volatile phenols, which contribute to the harshness of the taste; aldehydes, which promote cancer; and carbon monoxide, a known risk factor in heart disease. Previous studies indicate that water filtration may be quite effective in absorbing some of these [Nicholas Cozzi, Effects of Water Filtration on Marijuana Smoke: A Literature Review, MAPS Newsletter, Vol. IV #2, 1993]. If so, waterpipes might still turn out to have net health benefits.
MAPS and California NORML are planning to undertake a second phase of the waterpipe study for the purpose of analyzing the gaseous phase of marijuana smoke.
In the meantime, the easiest way for most smokers to avoid harmful smoke toxins may be simply to smoke stronger marijuana. This strategy is apt to be more effective than any smoke filtration device. By simply replacing the low, 2.3% potency NIDA marijuana used in this study with high-quality 12%-sinsemilla, smokers could presumably reduce their tar intake by a factor of five while still achieving the same effect. Further improvements could be had by using pure THC or hash oil, which has been tested at potencies of 60%.
The notion that high-potency marijuana is less harmful directly contradicts official government propaganda, which maintains that marijuana has become more dangerous since the '60s due to increased potency. This claim appears to rest less on scientific evidence than on the desire to frighten the public. A careful analysis of government data by Dr. John Morgan has shown that the supposed increase in potency has been greatly exaggerated [American Marijuana Potency: Data Versus Conventional Wisdom, NORML Reports (1994)]. In any case, however, there is no good reason to presume that higher potency marijuana is more harmful, given the potential respiratory benefits of reduced smoke consumption. The hazards of excessive potency are purported to be an increased risk of acute overdose and greater susceptibility to dependency. However, both problems can be avoided if users adjust their dosage to potency. For most users, such hazards may well be outweighed by the benefits of reduced smoke consumption.
Research in Australia
The Australian government is currently conducting another study that may cast further light on the effects of potency variations. The study is designed to determine baseline THC, tar, and carbon monoxide levels from marijuana and marijuana-tobacco mixtures smoked through joints and waterpipes. The samples being tested come from police seizures in six different Australian states. Researchers say that they have observed "incredible" variations in tar and THC potency among different samples. Their report is expected shortly.
THC Transfer Rate
The MAPS-NORML study provides new information on the efficiency of different devices in delivering THC from marijuana to the user. Previous studies have shown that 60% - 80% of the THC burned in joints or waterpipes is lost in slipstream smoke, adhesion to the pipestem and bowl, pyrolysis, etc. [Mario Perez-Reyes, Marijuana Smoking: Factors that Influence the Bioavailability of Tetrahydrocannabinol, in C. Nora Chiang and Richard Hawks, ed., Research Findings on Smoking of Abused Substances, NIDA Research Monograph 99, 1990]. The percentage of total THC delivered to the user is called the THC transfer rate. The unfiltered joint scored surprisingly well in smoking efficiency, coming in second place with a transfer rate close to 20%. The portable waterpipe did slightly better, and the bong slightly worse. The other devices did notably worse. The vaporizers and electric waterpipe did especially poorly, with transfer rates less than one-third that of the top three devices. Thus, heavy smokers could literally be blowing most of their stash away with bad pipes.
Note:
Contrary to the initial version of this article, which erroneously stated that THC vaporizes at 155? C, the Merck Manual lists the vaporization point of THC as 200? in vacuum. The vaporization point at normal atmospheric pressure appears to be unknown, but is thought to be in the range 250-400?.
California NORML
2215-R Market St. #278
San Francisco, CA 94114
CANORML@igc.apc.org
--------------------
I like your Christ, but I do not like Christians - they are so unlike Christ. -Gandhi
Edited by trippysmurf (06/04/04 11:00 PM)
|
trippysmurf
Smurfette'sSugar Daddy
Registered: 02/22/04
Posts: 195
Last seen: 18 years, 2 months
|
Re: BONG IS DONE! [Re: fearfect]
#2764944 - 06/04/04 11:05 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
As to your third point... generally a joint is shared. It's passed around the room, so you're not smoking the whole thing. If you combined all the weed that would've been smoked out of a bong from the same people in the room... the joint would actually be less, because the water does seem to filter out some THC.
Provided you are sharing that is. If you're smoking on your own... point well taken.
--------------------
I like your Christ, but I do not like Christians - they are so unlike Christ. -Gandhi
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder 
Cultivation Supplies 
Kratom Capsules for Sale 
Mono Tub Substrate 
Bridgetown Botanicals
Edit 
Reply 
jmg5
ShroomingNJ
1 2 3 4 5 all )
SmellyMushroom
MOTH
baraka
Atheist
iloveraving