Has Anyone Tried One Of These Out?

[Stuie]

If you have a small Mya Hookah these things are worth their weight in gold!

I pull like a villain and Water gets really loud and on some of them water splashes up the hose port. Heba solves both problems.

[Pilgrim]

I use it because it makes hookah smoking more quiet when I'm watching movies or listening to music. I don't know if it makes the smoke tastier, I do know it doesn't make it worse lol. And that it doubles the amount of co is -in my opinion- impossible..

[Tom1]

Exactly. The intake of CO is proportional to the amount of coal. Period. Nothing you do after that point will effect the CO. CO hitting the water is still a gas, and it will not be filtered by the water. Hell, even an activated charcoal filter somewhere in the system wouldn't change the amount of CO you intake. I am very familiar with these scientific concepts, and I still call bullshit on the study.

Wrong.


AND I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, we DO NOT know why it came up with the unexpected results for the diffuser. I'm not a CO testing machine, don't blame me if you don't like what it's saying.

[mattarios2]

I'm excited to see the results you and your college find ... keep me posted tom!

[liquidglass]

Exactly! I'm just helping out with the actual hookah procedures when needed, I leave the testing to the chemists. I said hey, try this diffuser I have, the theory is that it will filter the water better. It was tried multiple times with the same results.

You can say that it doesn't make sense all you want, but we still don't know why it came out as it did.

It's carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide.

When you say that the CO level will always be the same, that's wrong. The CO intake is directly proportionally to the size and amount of coals on the bowl.

Exactly. The intake of CO is proportional to the amount of coal. Period. Nothing you do after that point will effect the CO. CO hitting the water is still a gas, and it will not be filtered by the water. Hell, even an activated charcoal filter somewhere in the system wouldn't change the amount of CO you intake. I am very familiar with these scientific concepts, and I still call bullshit on the study.

If you're going to argue technicalities then it filters the smoke/vapor not the water.

What I don't think you took into account is exactly what I was trying to say and you missed, or the explanation above, which is originally what I was trying to say.

Let me break down my point of view.

If you have a bowl that holds 25g of tobacco and you use 2 coals (approx same size) with the filter, and the you use the same tobacco, bowl, and coals without the filter, you WILL get the same co2 over the entire period that the bowl is smoked, if the bowl is smoked till it is officially burned out.

If someone intakes more smoke with the diffuser that means the bowl will burn out faster, and if someone takes in less without the diffuser than the bowl will last longer because of the amount of air passing over the coals for each pull. But if the bowl is ended when it is approx the same amount of "finished" (when a person would normally stop smoking because of lack of flavor, or the tobacco has dried to the same extent both times) then you will get the same co2.

Now I wont' say you have to understand or accept this, because I realize it may not be as clear as it possibly could be, but I hope it explains my point better.

More than likely what happened in your test, is that the bowl was smoked the same amount of time regardless of flavor or burned tobacco, therefore if the tobacco burned nearly twice as fast with the diffuser but was still smoked the same amount of time as a bowl w/o diffuser then of course you would get close to double the CO.

I'm not saying you didn't get the results you got, I'm simple proposing there was an over looked variable in the test.

Exactly. The intake of CO is proportional to the amount of coal. Period. Nothing you do after that point will effect the CO. CO hitting the water is still a gas, and it will not be filtered by the water. Hell, even an activated charcoal filter somewhere in the system wouldn't change the amount of CO you intake. I am very familiar with these scientific concepts, and I still call bullshit on the study.

Wrong.


AND I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, we DO NOT know why it came up with the unexpected results for the diffuser. I'm not a CO testing machine, don't blame me if you don't like what it's saying.

Well if you don't know why or how the results came up, don't blame other people if they disagree with you since you're calling it a fact without indisputable results.

[Tom1]

If you have a bowl that holds 25g of tobacco and you use 2 coals (approx same size) with the filter, and the you use the same tobacco, bowl, and coals without the filter, you WILL get the same co2 over the entire period that the bowl is smoked, if the bowl is smoked till it is officially burned out.

If someone intakes more smoke with the diffuser that means the bowl will burn out faster, and if someone takes in less without the diffuser than the bowl will last longer because of the amount of air passing over the coals for each pull. But if the bowl is ended when it is approx the same amount of "finished" (when a person would normally stop smoking because of lack of flavor, or the tobacco has dried to the same extent both times) then you will get the same co2.

I understand, but don't think you're right. If anything the coals on a hookah using a diffuser would last long since airflow would be more restricted than without one, meaning you would smoke (slightly) longer using one.

But again, 20ml of smoke from a hookah using a diffuser was consistently giving double the amount of CO of 20ml of smoke from a hookah without a diffuser using the same setup, coals, and tobacco.

These results aren't the span of the session, they are being measured by each pull. Edited July 28, 2009 by Tom16689

[K1024]

If you have a bowl that holds 25g of tobacco and you use 2 coals (approx same size) with the filter, and the you use the same tobacco, bowl, and coals without the filter, you WILL get the same co2 over the entire period that the bowl is smoked, if the bowl is smoked till it is officially burned out.

If someone intakes more smoke with the diffuser that means the bowl will burn out faster, and if someone takes in less without the diffuser than the bowl will last longer because of the amount of air passing over the coals for each pull. But if the bowl is ended when it is approx the same amount of "finished" (when a person would normally stop smoking because of lack of flavor, or the tobacco has dried to the same extent both times) then you will get the same co2.

I understand, but don't think you're right. If anything the coals on a hookah using a diffuser would last long since airflow would be more restricted than without one, meaning you would smoke (slightly) longer using one.

But again, 20ml of smoke from a hookah using a diffuser was consistently giving double the amount of CO of 20ml of smoke from a hookah without a diffuser using the same setup, coals, and tobacco.

These results aren't the span of the session, they are being measured by each pull.

wrong, a diffuser decreases the pull on the hookah. meaning that at the calibrated settings your machine would pull more smoke through with the diffuser than it would without the diffuser.

basically youve proved that a diffuser makes it easier to pull, thus allowing for more smoke to be inhaled faster...

at least thats what my 2 years of physics classes has taught me..

[Tom1]

wrong, a diffuser decreases the pull on the hookah. meaning that at the calibrated settings your machine would pull more smoke through with the diffuser than it would without the diffuser.

basically youve proved that a diffuser makes it easier to pull, thus allowing for more smoke to be inhaled faster...

at least thats what my 2 years of physics classes has taught me..

How do you figure, that was just my speculation, nothing to do with the study.

It would seem that the diffuser just adds another barrier that the smoke has to pass through, slowing it down.

[Zinite]

wrong, a diffuser decreases the pull on the hookah. meaning that at the calibrated settings your machine would pull more smoke through with the diffuser than it would without the diffuser.

basically youve proved that a diffuser makes it easier to pull, thus allowing for more smoke to be inhaled faster...

at least thats what my 2 years of physics classes has taught me..

How do you figure, that was just my speculation, nothing to do with the study.

It would seem that the diffuser just adds another barrier that the smoke has to pass through, slowing it down.

It wouldn't slow it down. You have X number of holes (without a diffuser, 1 hole, with a diffuser, 20 or 30). Assuming the surface area of the total holes with no diffuser and with diffuser are the same, you'd get the same flow rate in milliliters per second with a pull of the same intensity.

[Tom1]

wrong, a diffuser decreases the pull on the hookah. meaning that at the calibrated settings your machine would pull more smoke through with the diffuser than it would without the diffuser.

basically youve proved that a diffuser makes it easier to pull, thus allowing for more smoke to be inhaled faster...

at least thats what my 2 years of physics classes has taught me..

How do you figure, that was just my speculation, nothing to do with the study.

It would seem that the diffuser just adds another barrier that the smoke has to pass through, slowing it down.

It wouldn't slow it down. You have X number of holes (without a diffuser, 1 hole, with a diffuser, 20 or 30). Assuming the surface area of the total holes with no diffuser and with diffuser are the same, you'd get the same flow rate in milliliters per second with a pull of the same intensity.

Then why would it cook the tobacco any slower or faster...?

[no longer welcome]

i can't wait for eric to chime in on this one, he is the only person i know in the industry that will have a scientific answer.
i do think it's great if you want to reduce noise while watching movies with other people, however, i like the rumble that hookahs make.

[liquidglass]

If you have a bowl that holds 25g of tobacco and you use 2 coals (approx same size) with the filter, and the you use the same tobacco, bowl, and coals without the filter, you WILL get the same co2 over the entire period that the bowl is smoked, if the bowl is smoked till it is officially burned out.

If someone intakes more smoke with the diffuser that means the bowl will burn out faster, and if someone takes in less without the diffuser than the bowl will last longer because of the amount of air passing over the coals for each pull. But if the bowl is ended when it is approx the same amount of "finished" (when a person would normally stop smoking because of lack of flavor, or the tobacco has dried to the same extent both times) then you will get the same co2.

I understand, but don't think you're right. If anything the coals on a hookah using a diffuser would last long since airflow would be more restricted than without one, meaning you would smoke (slightly) longer using one.

But again, 20ml of smoke from a hookah using a diffuser was consistently giving double the amount of CO of 20ml of smoke from a hookah without a diffuser using the same setup, coals, and tobacco.

These results aren't the span of the session, they are being measured by each pull.

I appreciate your position, and the same as you I disagree. In my opinion (this is an opinion) a diffuser breaks the smoke down into smaller bubbles, which means that there are more smaller breaks in the surface tension of the water. Which would enable a smoker to inhale more smoke (thus more CO) in one pull. As opposed to without a diffuser, which we know causes larger bubbles (bigger breaks in surface tension and the rush of water after a significant break of surface tension would temporarily block the end of the stem. Which would result in the water itself creating a temporary barrier to the smoke after each large bubble (w/o diffuser). With a diffuser the water would not create as significant a temporary barrier allowing more smoke thus CO during a pull. I understand the logic you're using believing the diffuser would create an additional barrier to the smoke, however I think you should look at it from the opposite point of view. The diffuser actually creates a barrier between the water and the stem keeping the end of the stem from being blocked as much.

Also, for each pull I agree you would get more CO, but as I've stated, over the course of a bowl (read: until the bowl is adequately burned out (the same in both tests)) you should get roughly the same CO. If you are able to take deeper pulls with a diffuser then there would be a greater amount of air passing over the coals, giving off more heat, and burning the bowl quicker than the average pull.

So in the end, I disagree with the study but respect your opinion on the matter, and would like to see if there is a scientific way to either prove me right or wrong.

i can't wait for eric to chime in on this one, he is the only person i know in the industry that will have a scientific answer.
i do think it's great if you want to reduce noise while watching movies with other people, however, i like the rumble that hookahs make.

I agree, I'd be interested in Erics opinion. But I think he holds off on them sometimes because once he's adequately formed an opinion it's the end of a good debate lol.