It wasn't really a waste since I still got pretty high . Also, 10x papers is nothing compared to packs, and it is true that it takes longer to roll them, but I was just throwing out some info. I never said it was the best way of smoking/rolling a joint, I only said most efficient. You don't have to do this or anything, but I was just throwing an experiments results out there.
10 papers is almost a third a pack... and you didn't really come up with any results man. "What I'm trying to prove is, that just as the higher the CPS the bigger the rush you get, the lower the CPS the smaller hits you get, but the duration is longer, and you just have more a body high maybe." You didn't prove or even mention any of this, not that there is a quantitave way to measure highness. The only results you posted were the "velocity" or rate of how fast your joints burned by using a stopwatch and dividing one number by another number. And if the CPS is the same regardless of diameter, why is it relevant again? I really don't mean to be a dick but you are wayyyy to high man. lol
Remember, CPS = Centimeters burned per second. To calculate that we needed these 2 - Distance in inches/Time in minutes So the bigger hits you take the more distance is covered in less time Here's something I just created to help explain.
Lol maybe, but like I said at the beginning [guess I kinda got off track maybe] the main reason I did this was to figure out the answer of how to save the most weed if you only have joint papers, but it measures more than that and has more purposes, since it can be used on any smoking device basically.
no, i completely understand the very basic formula that defines velocity as distance/time, you didn't invent that. all you did was plug variable terms from smoking in, this is elementary physics... and distance the joint burned DOES NOT equal the volume of weed, everyone knows volume is measured with 3 dimensions, you'd have to include diameter. why is it so extraordinary to realize that the harder you pull on a joint the faster it will burn and the more smoke you get? that is obvious when you smoke. seriously no one else realized this?
I think your ONLY looking at the simple side of it, and not what I'm actually saying, we know everything else, I'm just proving that smaller joints are more efficient that's all, and then I'm saying the same formula used to calculate the efficiency can be used on other smoking devices as well. I don't know how else to explain it to you.
-The graph is literally titled "volume burned per second. " How can this be applied to a bowl? What is the length of a bowl? This needs to be volume, which you clearly are not measuring. -You did claim you invented the formula for velocity then asked "credit" be given for some reason, " also I've designed this little formula that corresponds to the science side of it." -This formula and "experiment" tells us one thing and one thing only, how fast a joint burns. It does nothing even close to calculating efficiency in any way shape or form, it shows no benefits of a smaller diameter nor mention to diameter use as variable in anyway, nor does it outline any benefits of rolling tiny joints (You advised we do this because of "CPS" but repeatedly said that fat, normal, and skinny joints burn at the same rate. The only difference is how hard you are sucking on the joint, which has no relevance to the diameter of the joint. Please bold some part for me that even remotely suggests you found that smaller joints are efficient and maybe I'll understand what you're claiming a bit better. What you are suggesting is that smoking a thinner joint (ie less weed) and in the same time (you said they burn at the same rate as normal joints) you get higher? That is not possible. You can explain it much easier in the future by saying, "the faster and harder you take a hit, the higher you will get". It is really that simple. Smoker Experience 101, not Advanced Smoker Math 401. I think maybe you're thinking you're getting higher because you are having more than one joint, when in reality you are smoking the same amount of weed it makes you feel like youve been smoking more. Or even just cuz you're pacing yourself, but these numbers show nothing. Or is your point that thinner joints arent as harsh and can be smoked faster to consume more weed/second? Because that's not even true either. You can take longer hits on smaller joints, but the volume being burned is less and the reason its harsh is because its more smoke...
We and I already know that, I'm only applying that concept to how much weed you smoke in a single joint. Think about it like this, [pros & cons] Bong = -Bigger hits -more intense high -shorter high -and more weed wasted when your not hitting it Now think about the opposite Skinny joint = -Smaller hits -less intense high -longer duration [because it wasn't in one big rush] -and the less weed wasted when your not hitting it [thats because since the small joint burn just as long as the fat ones. The smaller one has less marijuana but it doesn't burn any faster or slower, it burns just about the same amount of time, so that means you save marijuana since its a smaller amount of weed but it still burns at the same rate as larger joints that use more amounts of marijuana and that burn MORE weed when your not hitting it] So like I've said before, my whole point is basically to show the efficiency of smaller joints, I'm not trying to show "the bigger hit you take the higher you get". I'm comparing smoking devices and how EFFICIENT they are [saves most weed] not how high you get. So what it really boils down to is when you don't have a lot of weed and you have a few smoking devices, you will know which one is your best bet if you want to stretch your high. So it really IS simple when you break it down, but not how you were thinking, and the process must be explained first because you must figure out what device you have will save the most weed and still get you as high as you want. < basically what the chart is for
I think you are confused son, you said I need to be measuring volume but you also said the name of the graph is called "VOLUME burned per second", so it is what I'm measuring, and it can be applied to a bowl. Your thinking of when I mentioned centimeters of a joint, which CAN'T be applied to a bowl, that's why I mentioned several times that your best bet on anything would be calculating volume.
You don't even know what you're trying to say. Is it that skinnier joints are more efficient than regular joints? Because you didn't prove that. Is it that skinnier joints are more efficient than bongs? Because you didn't prove that either. The only thing you proved was that all diameters of joints burn at the same rate and that distance/time=velocity can apply to a joint burning down, which is very obvious. Again, how would you use this formula for a bowl? What is the distance value? Again, you are thinking in volume. I think you need to go to sleep and read this again tomorrow dude
So if i title a graph, "how many turtles I can fuck in a minute" and then measure my dick and plot it, that makes the former accurate? i didnt make it up, the graph LITERALLY is titled "volume burned per second" when in fact it shows the distance burned per second. distance/time=velocity. velocity is not volume. the volume would be calculated by this formula for the volume of a cylinder: PI IS 3.14... R=RADIUS H=HEIGHT (WHICH IN THIS CASE IS THE LENGTH) What you said with this quote is that the volume of a bowl is the bowls distance divided by its time. which is in fact its velocity and doesn't even make sense. Which is exactly what you should have done to make this relevant or applicable to anything but joints of equal lengths. So you agree, this formula is not applicable to a bowl?
Again, your STILL not getting the point. Well first, you would use this formula for a bowl by calculating it's VBPS [volume burned per second] which only shows that the bigger the bowl and the more you smoke, the higher you get, which is common sense. The POINT is, I'm comparing JOINT SIZES, you keep bringing bongs and pipes into this, I said the formula could be used on those devices but I didn't say it was required. Don't mention bongs or pipes again because that's not what this is about really. It's only saying that smaller joints save more weed than fatter joints, so if your ever tight on marijuana it's better to smoke a bunch of small joints than one big joint or if you can put it like, its better to have a skinny long joint over a fat joint short joint. Why? because the joint papers burn almost the same amount of time.
Dude, thats because you aren't making one. volume burned per second, as I JUST said, would be a COMPLETELY different formula, IE this formula (v=d/t) DOES NOT WORK FOR THOSE. Which is my point, it cannot be used on those devices. A point I made because you claimed it could be used. It would be a formula for volume, as should your formula for joints, but it is easier to use distance since papers eliminate one of the variables because the lengths are all the same (since we are speaking about the same papers) The only reason you have for thinking a thinner joint wastes less weed is that it burns less in between hits, which is obvious. but you should have calculated the volume of the joint in relation to how fast it burned to make that point. The math you used does not show that and it is indeed common sense. Like I said before, none of this math or a formula or a change in joint diameter is needed if you AREN'T BOGARTING (do you know what bogarting means?). I get that it burns less between hits, but that has nothing to do with your math because you showed distance burned which has no relation to how thick the joint is. It is also not "extraordinary" because its common sense. This is extremely obvious and I assume you took 7th grade math so I'm just gonna guess that you're too high to realize this right now. So good night.
I know I made that mistake, MY main formula is VOLUME BURNED PER SECOND (or any other time) So my formula is applicable to a bowl because I'm not calculating strictly velocity, I'm calculating the velocity that an object burns. Which I think would be volume / time [although I did it by centimeters with the joint which CAN'T be used on bowls, but it can be used on joints although not as accurate as volume] So to break it down again, I'm saying the amount of volume burned [of course burning while you were inhaling] in a certain amount of time = how big the hit is I really hope you get it now. Again just to be clear, I know I made a few errors in the main post, but now I'm correcting it. So again I'm saying Volume Burned divided by how long the object was burning = how big the hit is [when talking about marijuana and inhaling]
No, your main formula is velocity burned. You really dont understand that you are trying to measure the change in volume (its your independent variable) but you are changing the volume to test this? (which is your dependent variable) But its not... Your formula did not show that. And you should not need math to realize that. AND that is exactly what I've been summarizing your post as the whole time.... But you never found the volume... and you never measure a "hit" (1cm of burnt joint is how many cubic centimeters of smoke at 1 atmosphere?) just how much was burned, and the relationship between the two is COMPLETELY obvious without math, not that you did the math correctly or even applied the correct type of math.
That part in red is exactly what I was trying to do and it's what I just posted. If I was wrong then I said please correct me, lol, I'm just trying to figure out how to calculate that exactly. So please tell me then, since all of my math is wrong, what's the formula for calculating the volume burned per second?
Volume of a bowl is real, sure, but that formula will not tell you the volume of a bowl. You would need to measure the length, width, and height (3 variables, volume is cubic) of the bowl to tell that. and the formula would be far more complicated than d/t. To calculate the volume burned per second, even though I already told you, would be like this: 1-Find volume of joint. We need radius, pi, and height (in this case length) to find the volume of a cylinder. 70mm long paper means height = 70, h=70 Pi is 3.14 (its easier) Radius of the joint depends on how thick (the diameter) it is divided by 2. so say the joint is diameter of .6cm( probably an average joint diameter) or, if you wanted to measure it around (the circumference) you could do that then divide that by pi and you would have the diameter. divide diameter by 2 to get radius. so radius of a .6cm diameter joint is .3cm or 30mm (to make our measurements the same units) so plug those into the formula for the volume of a cylinder, which i said earlier was: volume=pi*r(squared)*h or volume=3.14*(30*30)*70 or volume=3.14*900*70 or volume=197,820 and the unit is cubic millimeters so a that joint, of 70mm rolling papers, with a diameter of .6 (or a circumference of pi*.6) would be 197,820 cubic millimeters. you said you smoked your joint in 3 minutes 38 seconds. or 3.63 minutes so volume of weed smoked per minute = 197,820/3.63 or 54,495.87 cubic millimeters per minute now roll different thickness of joints and replace the radius respectively, but it is obvious that an increase in thickness will increase the volume and thus the volume/minute. remember, VOLUME NEEDS 3 dimensions or 3 variables and is thus cubic. and you still did not prove there was a relationship between volume/second smoked and how high you get, or in other words, that the faster you smoke a set amount of weed, the higher you get. its obvious, but you never proved it. and since you cant really measure highness, you cant really prove it other than by opinion, which is not technically proof.
Your exactly right, and we're both on the same page. I know that volume is 3 variables, I would have did it the same way you described, I keep saying volume divided by time = volume burned per second, and you just said the same thing except you showed the exact formula which I already knew to use except I don't have the tools to measure the exact volume of the joint. I didn't say the formula would show the volume of a bowl, I said it calculates the VOLUME BEING BURNED PER SECOND, there's a big difference. And didn't you just say volume/time = volume BURNED PER SECOND (not just volume). That's what I've been saying the whole time, example. In my first post this is exactly what I said: Distance in inches/Time in minutes = velocity (This is indeed the calculation to get velocity) 3 inches/ 3.38.29 = 0.895 = 2.3 centimeters burned per second [CBPS] (Change the inches to volume - This is volume DIVIDED by time, which is what you JUST said was the formula for getting volume burned per second, except you showed how to get volume which is common sense that it's required. It's just I don't have the right tools to calculate volume, so I used length in centimeters which could be accurate, but not nearly as much as using volume. So basically you've proved what I've been saying, except you didn't understand what I was trying to say. The graph shows volume burned per second because if you change "distance - centimeters" to "volume" then it will be a graph of "Volume burned per second" since we both agree that volume divided by time is volume burned per second. I just didn't break down how to calculate the volume like you did, I used centimeters instead.