OK, not 100% sure whether this should go here, if not, sorry for that!
Just wanted to ask around what all of you think about NETs and what effect Wattage and/or temperature has on it. This has been bugging me for a long time now, as I have done one successful extraction and one on a tea I have here. After being rather happy initially with my extracted Captain Black (heated PG extraction in three 12 hour phases, coffee filter and 2 micron filter), I noticed the same oily kind of flavour in the extracted tea, which made me thing I did something wrong, as the two shouldn’t have much - if anything - in common flavourwise. But let’s keep this about the initial question first.
So, over at epipeforum (a fantastic, incredibly friendly vaping forum, too - the only other one I’m kind of active in) it seems to be the consensus that NETs suffer tremendously in flavour once vaped above 15W to 20W, in fact most recommend building at least 1.8 ohms for vaping NETs. They also observed that your NET’s flavour profile will change immensely even when changing the Wattage by only 0.5W.
It seems that many over here are vaping high wattage mainly or exclusively, so I’d be thrilled to hear how you like your NETs, what Wattage and temperature etc.
I’ll probably elaborate on this a bit more, however, I agree that the amount of juice (wattage) you shoot to your juice, does make a huge difference. I typically vape my NET liquids on a single coil over 1 ohm at around +/- 12 or 13 watts.
@vaug … the flavor factor with NET liquids can benefit from low ohm coils and low wattage/power. Many NET Vapers will tell you this. Now… I use anything from .6 ohm coils at 22 to 24 watts to 1.2 ohm coils at 12 to 14 watts; simple single or pair twisted coils. For me this is perfect… it is a matter of preference for others.
You ask about further filtration of a NET for more ml of juice going through the wick/coil before a cleaning:
The natural dextrose content of some tobaccos or tobacco blends negates further filtering; just the nature of the beast. Over time, I’ve just come to grips with daily wick changes and coil burns.
PG/VG ratio in a mix? Again, this is a matter of preference. Me… 60PG/40VG. Why? I like my juice very fluid/easy moving in an atomizer/wick and for me, PG is a much better flavor carrier than VG… especially with tobacco vapes.
You might want to consider doing a PGA version and a PG version of the same tobacco at the same time to check out the differences between the two solvents; you might find that you favor one over the other.
You might want to consider doing a PGA version and a PG version of the same tobacco at the same time to check out the differences between the two solvents; you might find that you favor one over the other. slight_smile:
One of my pet peeves is that the NET forums, especially one that will remain nameless over at ECF that talks about Ethyl Alcohol extractions never discusses the chemisty of a particular solvents ability to readily disolve any particular chemical or group of related chemicals.
( … edited out a paragraph of a vast oversimplification example that I have now thought better about )
OK, now take your tobacco sample and apply different solvents. Ask yourself “What is happening here” … The answer is that each different solvent interacts with the tobacco sample in a different way. Each solvent pulls a different fraction of the soluble flavor profile. One solvent, perhaps, can dissolve and therefor extract and bring with it the “base ‘oil’ flavors”. one solvent dissolves better the higher more aromatic. The “entire flavor profile” of the tobacco is not pulled by one solvent or one method. If your goal is to have the most robust and the fullest flavor profile from a sample you might have to later blend and combine each unique solvent ability to bring with it a portion of the whole.
This subject is even way more technically involved than my two thumbnail paragraphs above, but I will just let it go at this for now,… The point is to get you thinking beyond the common ECF Forum “one tobacco, one solvent, one technique is the best for all, works for all, gives you the total flavor profile from any tobacco sample you choose”
I have, personally, been experimenting with taking tobacco samples for extraction and separately applying differing solvents, different cell wall disruptions (ultra-sonic, Kinnik Heat Bump, etc), different long term closet heat profiles,… multilpe centrifuge extraction,… I later combine the various extractions, and have now what I call a 3 Stage extraction technique. I believe I am getting very positive results, as those extractions seem, to me and my tastebuds anyway, to have a much broader flavor profile than just simple EA extractions.
With all due respect I will quote the following from ECF. This quote is taken from the first page of their Hot Ethanol thread… I want to go on record as stating that the following paragraph is, in my estimation, totally inaccurate and not even close to the truth. Actually, in my opinion, it is just nonsense.
Hot ethanol extraction produces a more robust, wider spectrum tobacco flavor. In addition to the brighter flavor notes that ethanol alone produces, hot processing also provides the deeper, richer notes cold processing lacks. I’ve only extracted four different tobacco blends using this method but all turned out quite exceptional, better than well aged PG, VG, and “cold” ethanol extractions of the same tobacco blends.
What can you say? everyone has a different opinion, but chemistry is chemistry. It works in very predictable ways. Solvent and flavor profile extraction is a well understood subject, food flavor and perfume compounding depend on it. Trust me the statement quoted above is not correct.
OK, - I think this has turned into a little bit of a rant,… but this subject has been on my mind for some time. This is my first post about it. If I get the chance i will write an actual monograph to explain all it in detail. My hearts in the right place, I am just trying to give the new experimenter with DIY NET some perspective on internet forums that pretend to “know everything” about NET Tobacco extraction.