Talk:Vaporizer (inhalation device)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Intro

The introduction is long and drawn out. It feels like it was written by an expert and would not appeal to less experienced Wikipedians. Perhaps it could be simplified. Adding internal links may help.

I don't thinking sound like it was written by an expert should be considered a problem. But, yes, the first paragraph of an article should serve as a summary and offer a simple explanation of the topic.--69.108.218.164 (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A topic of ....

2-furfurylthiol has been added based on the following http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=+coffee&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=2+furfurylthiol+&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.67.200.15 (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

Who on God's green Earth smokes tobacco with a vaporizer? Nitrosamine is scary stuff, but is that really relevant enough to mention, when we all know what people use vapes for? -JRV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.121.51 (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Free access to A. Hazekamp article

A. Hazekamp included his article on the volcano in his thesis, which is available without any subscription from here. I'm not sure how to add this to the references, or if I even should.

El sjaako (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed tags (and) propose disambiguation

I've removed two tags from the top, as there did not apprear to be ongoing discussion relating to them. I also propose that this page goes to a disambiguation, with types having [their (own)] pages. brenneman 01:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Vaporizer has been moved to Vaporizer (cannabis) and made a disambiguation page. - brenneman 02:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Radiation vaporizer picture removal

This thread has been moved from User talk:Aaron Brenneman#Radiation vaporizer picture removal
Hello Aaron.

It appears that you have removed the picture of the radiation vaporiser which I had placed on this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporizer_%28cannabis%29

Administrator Barek mentionned that you considered the page becoming some sort of picture gallerie.

Actually, the page contains 3 images of convection vaporizers and 1 of a conduction vaporizer. Undoubtably the image of the radiation vaporizer I had added is of interest to wikipedians.

Should I replace 1 of the redundant images with mine, will you oppose?

Best regards Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.231.137 (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
End moved section.

I put the image you suggested back in and took out another. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Vaporizer vs. Humidifier

The page as is (2009-03-22) predominately describes vaporizers as used to dispense cannabis. However, there are several units in the market which are marketed for colds and allergies. To remain general, I think the description should be broader and not specific to a particular use.

There is also some confusion where units are described interchangeably as either humidifier or vaporizer. It is not clear if there is a clear distinction of definition between these two. Certainly, both terms are used in common usage to apply to the same thing. See, for example:

• NexTag Comparison Shopping: "steam vaporizer"
• Vicks: Vaporizers and Steam Inhalers
• iVillage: Cool Mist Humidifier or Steam Vaporizer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.97.68 (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The DABlink at the very top of the article resolves any confusion by pointing at Humidifier. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C15:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the DABlink resolves the confusion as it is. When I saw it, I thought it meant the boxes used when you have a cold are not correctly called vaporizers. But a quick Googling revealed that those boxes are in fact marketed as "vaporizers." I'm not well-versed in Wikipedia protocol, but would it be clearer if it said something like, "Not to be confused with devices used to moisten room air, also known as humidifers?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.242.144 (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not certain if this is the right page but I recently read a Novelle Cuisine cookbook and it recommended the usage of a vaporizer for making a pillow of lavender vapor on which to place a napkin then the dessert. What article would best describe that kind of vaporizer? Can that type of vaporizer work for inhalation also?-- Azemocram (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You'd probably want to use a food steamer for that. WikiDao ☯ 13:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Volcano vaporizer be merged into this article. The Volcano is nothing more or less than a particular brand of vaporizer; as such, in this encyclopædia, it ought to be covered within the article dealing with its category of items. Too, there are many other brands and models of vaporizer. Some of them may be noteworthy enough to warrant specific coverage, which would best be done in a single article rather than having a separate article for each and every vaporizer, much as we don't have articles for Duracell batteries and Energizer batteries and Eveready batteries, we have Battery. There is good, well-supported content in the Volcano article, virtually all of which would substantially augment this article to make it better overall than it presently is and better overall than the standalone Volcano article. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That has been done. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This only is fair and "encyclopedic" if other brands for examples shown or referenced are also included in the article...it's like having a Wiki page for "Automobile" and only Ford get's a special section and specific brand mention...totally unfair and biased content. Since many vaporizers are the same structure, i.e. box and hose, one popular example here, i.e. VaporBrothers, would suffice and the Volcano is a unique bag capture approach that has been well studied and marketed could be another brand example that also represents a unique approach example and VripTech which also has a unique "modular tools based system" approach and has been well studied and marketed could be another brand/approach exmaple---this would now cover three of the most popular styles and brand examples without favoring one particular brand or style of Vaporizer. Readers/Consumers would get multiple style and brand examples that are relative and encyclopedic rather than generic styles discussed and only ONE brand/approach/style example represented. Additional brand/style/approach examples could include portable butane powered catalytic vaporizers, i.e. the iolite, and portable flame filter vaporizers, i.e. the vapor genie. Since in some cases there is only one brand representing a particular style/approach, i.e. Volcano, Vapor Genie, and VripTech, than having the one brand represented is in fact encylopedic without any commerical favoritism...where there is a particular style/approach with multiple brands either give one of the more popular ones mention as the brand and preferably a pic or just give a pic and don't mention any brands would make the most sense and seem the most equitable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GammaFlow (talk • contribs) 06:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What you are doing is restoring a version of this article that's over a month old in order to restore advertising mentions. At the same time, you are wiping out a large number of edits that individually provided incremental improvements to the article. Wikipedia does not exist to promote your product. Please stop restoring the advert-heavy version you continue to re-insert. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all it's not "my product" in fact if you look at my recommendation I contributed above I mention multiple products that could be included to keep it unbiased but improve encyclopedic content...do you think I am some kind of vaporizer baron Barek? Really? I see that you have removed all brand mentions as well as diluted detail, but at least it is encyclopedic without favoring one brand over another. I'm OK with this but it would seem from your position and this page's history that if a brand simply creates their own Wiki page ala Volcano did than all of a sudden their brand becomes encylopedic, but no other brands become encyclopedic...hmmm sounds like maybe someone has a vested interest or preference for Volcano maybe? I'm fine if there is no brands at all metioned but if there is one brand mentioned and no other than I will fight you tooth and nail on principle Barek! No brands at all should be mentioned or multiple brands that are representative of the multiple approaches/styles to vaporization should be mentioned to keep it equitable and encyclopedic. Also, the image that you continue to label "glass vaporizer" is not simply a "glass vaporizer" in fact there really is no such thing. It is one of the modular "heat wand" systems (air/vapor path is glass) defined in the article so some more detail without the brand should be OK I'm assuming. You've got more time than I do clearly to contribute here and that is appreciated, but I know the content well as a medical aromatherapist who uses vaporizers (many different styles and brands) and I will keep checking in to make sure YOU ARE NOT FACILITATING THIS PAGE EXISTING AS ADVERTISING FOR ONE COMPANY WITHOUT MENTION OF THE MANY OTHERS THAT EXIST AS RELATIVE TO UNIQUE APPROACHES/STYLES TO VAPORIZATION AS WELL---MENTIONS THAT CAN, IN FACT, PRAGMATICALLY BE CONSIDERED ENCYCLOPEDIC for the reasons I outlined above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GammaFlow (talk • contribs) 20:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You were rolling back to a version of this page that was over a year old, in the process wiping out over 200 other edits by a large number of other editors. I reverted your rollbacks as you claimed to be addressing a single issue, yet you wiped out edits to the entire article to restore the version you had edited over a year ago with no regard to the hundreds of edits that you dismissed in the process - doing so repeatedly even after warnings clearly qualifies as vandalism. I have made no other content changes, neither adding nor removing content - feel free to review the article history to confirm this, the other advert content was appropriately removed by a different editor. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough I was simply reverting to what I had saved as what I thought and still think was a better detailed and encyclopedic article on the whole. When I have more time I'll go back through section by section. Are you satisfied with the current page's content including the addition of the Volcano image without brand and the detailing of the subtitle for the image of the heat wand/water pipe system without brand mention? Please confirm Barek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GammaFlow (talk • contribs) 04:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Just chiming in as the one who removed the "volcano" section. I think that the article reads better without the advertising. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 05:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Fighting over water-bongs... our species is truly doomed. Also I think a promotion-free article is preferable as well. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! Although I do believe that if there is only one company/brand that distributes a unique approach/style/technology that may be proprietary (i.e. Volcano, VripTech, Iolite, Vapor Genie) the mention of their company name or brand name could be considered encyclopedic in that context. I just don't think it is fair to have only one brand mentioned and for some reason Volcano seemed to be considered encyclopedic whereas no other brands where considered so? I believe the way it reads now is acceptable but is short in some areas of detail that where lost from earlier versions in the battle over to mention or not to mention any brands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.7.173.68 (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

File:VripTechVHWInAction.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:VripTechVHWInAction.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how to contest this deletion before only after it is done? I have emailed VripTech previously and been told that none of their website images are locked and all are free for public disemmination as long as they are not modified beyond size. This is an image of their product in usage that is on their website and permission has been granted for its usage. Please do not delete. If there is a formal process that needs to be adhered to whereas a formal permission is granted for usage to Wiki direct please advise me here and I'll follow up with VripTech to facilitate. For now please do not delete. This image is extremely encyclopedic in my opinion as it shows a distinct approach to vaporization that is discussed in the article but much easier to understand with a visual image provided and there are no brands or trademarks clearly visible in the image or mentioned in the subtitle now.--GammaFlow (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, you do absolutely nothing and let it get deleted - or talk VripTech to release it (themselves) with the appropriate copyright license. The permissions you claim VripTech has given, even if they could be proven, are not the correct licensing permitted for commons. If you go to that commons page, there should be links to more info that may explain it in more detail if you're interested (or you can drop another note here if you want a more in depth explanation). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a process through Commons:OTRS, check the section titled "If you need to confirm permission" for instructions on how to get the copyright release reviewed and validated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've emailed the company that the alleged copyvio image comes from... I just hope they respond in time! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 02:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: It worked! http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:VripTechVHWInAction.jpg&diff=54827681&oldid=54674444 Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 02:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(cannabis) as disambig

Is (cannabis) the best disambiguation term for this article? The article itself states that these are also used for tobacco and herbs, and even culinary applications. I'm not sure what the best term would be, but wouldn't something like (herb) or (herbal) be more appropriate? Denatured Alcohol ░ ▒ ▓ 13:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Vaporizer Temperature for Cannabis

Here is an article showing that the best vaporization temperature for cannabis is 200 - 230 degrees celcius, or somewhere in between, and that 170 degrees offers a very poor ratio of cannabinoids to byproducts. Opinions?

http://www.vaporizer-info.com/news/

Fireemblem555 (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one thing it would depend on what chemicals one wanted; as time goes by, the direct and moderating effects of CBDs, which vapourise at higher temperatures than THC, seem to pile up---admittedly, I am biased, as I belief that marijuana prohibition has led to people's altering chemical profiles that served the test of time in the pursuit of higher and higher THC levels.

Gerald Fnord (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Other types of vaporizer which are ignored in the article

First, I don't think a link to Humidifier is going to necessary help anyone who comes here looking for an article covering steam vaporizers. Sources such as this suggest (as does my own experience) that they are not considered to be the same thing.[1] Secondly, there are vaporizers that are not used by or for individuals, eg the ones pictured here (you may have to scroll down), or , or - I have no idea how many different kinds of vaporizers are used in industry. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

When properly/traditionally used, the hookah in fact works by convective vapourisation. Most Americans use them as bong-like pipes, instead, lighting the smoked on fire using an open flame, rather than letting it set below an hot coal. Gerald Fnord (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Broken reference link to aids.org

One of the reference links ("Vaporizers for Medical Marijuana". www.aids.org. Retrieved 2008-07-28.) is currently broken; rather than just being moved, the site no longer seems to have the specific article (http://www.aids.org/atn/a-327-02.html) that was linked to. I'm not sure of the appropriate course of action in this kind of case (change link to point to the wayback machine?), so while I do intend to look into it myself, I thought it best to mention the problem here in case I get distracted or similar (ooh, shiny...) and don't actually fix anything... - Pacula (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is forbidden by Internet censorship in Russia

Please, draw attention to http://wikimedia.ru/blog/2013/04/08/15blacklisted. Ain92 (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Let them block the entire wikipedia: we will not alter content on behalf of the Russian government. Or else let them officially make a request to The Foundation. — Zanaq (?) 18:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The point of posting this notice is to alert people to any attempt to delete the article or censor any of its pertinent sourced content. If we need to protect, it should be discussed first at an admin board. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 15:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Following MOS:HEAD, sentence case should be used in section headings. Therefore, the current section headings should be adjusted:

• E-Cigarette Vaporizers → E-cigarette vaporizers
• Benefits of E-Cigarettes → Benefits of e-cigarettes
• Marijuana Vaporizers → Marijuana vaporizers
• Vaporizers for Medical Use → Vaporizers for medical use

--89.0.223.23 (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 16:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2014

Medical-e-Joint has been tested in Holland with MMJ and test show that the Medical-e-Joint is a better way to deliver cannabis to patient. 86.85.149.254 (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Electronic Cigarette

I've replaced what was said about electronic cigarette with the opening of the main article. The prior info contained to many controversial health claims that were sourced only by primary literature when secondary sources are available as per WP:PRIMARY. These issue were extensively discussed on Talk:Electronic_cigarette. TheNorlo (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Electronic Cigarettes ------> Moving OUT content and pointing to main article. Opportunity to comment before I proceed. Logic is.

Electronic cigarettes are a type of Vaporizer, however they are clearly the most common in use today. They are being subjected to FDA regulation specific to Nicotine, which is unique. Electronic Cigarettes already has a topic defined.

The problem is that this content is old, and does not match the main Electronic Cigarette article. It will always become unlinked and out of sync to the main.

The proposal: Leave the section, and put in a line something like. "Electronic Cigarettes are a form of a Vaporizers that are used to inhale nicotine in a manner similar to cigarettes. SEE MAIN ARTICLE.

FEEDBACK PLEASE. I do think this is somewhat of a no-brainer. Any solution to keep it the way it is now, would have to propose a way to keep them synced up. Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The content is not old. I updated the content. QuackGuru (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

As outlined on talk page? The text was updated and e-cigs are a type of vaporizer. QuackGuru (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Attention. I am asking again for feedback. This article is part of the Cannabis project. Electronic Cigarettes have nothing to do with Cannablis. Electronic Cigarettes create an aerosol, which is a different process than Vaporization. This article is about specific forms of Vaporization. There are electronic systems that Vaporize Dry Tobacco, which are indeed part of this ARTICLE. However Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems, are in fact not Vaporizers as defined by this article. To which I will be moving out the ENDS items and gathering in the Dry Leaf Vaporizers of Tobacco.

If there are objections please inform me, so we can discuss. Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 08:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

THE CONTENT IS OUTDATED and not in line with the articles its links to. Some users of wiki don't have time to click on every page, they might land here first and read through it completely taking it as likely gospel. Yes the other pages may be more current, but when its dinner time and you have to shut the computer, there isn't time to poke around for page two. I SAY, SCRAP THE PAGE AND JUST REDIRECT people to better pages or this link needs to be current with 2017 or 2018 facts, not 2014 speculation. PhilEdits (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

What is outdated? We don't delete relevant content. QuackGuru (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)