The graph proves that, like me and you both said, the volume divided by time = volume burned per second, and you also said we all know the bigger hit you take, the higher you get. What the graph shows is the HIGHER the volume burned per second, the bigger the hit you get, and like I just said THE BIGGER THE HIT, THE HIGHER YOU GET, which is fact. So by presenting the volume burned per second formula, I actually did prove there was a relationship between "volume smoked per second" and "how high you get" because the "higher the volume smoked per second" the "bigger the hit" which equals "the higher you get" so it does measure how high you will get and for how much longer for the DEVICES no matter how you look at it.
I'm not sure how you can't understand that you can't just call velocity volume. They are completely different things and are calculated completely differently. The formula you gave does not show the volume being burned, im not sure how many times I have to say that. To use this on a bowl, distance is irrelevant. You HAVE TO find the volume and then divide it by the time. Velocity really never should have been brought up at all. "Change the inches to volume" it doesnt work like that. I get that you are trying to equate the distance on a joint burned to volume since that is so much easier to calculate, but its not the same thing. Changing the thickness of the joint changes the volume and you did not account for that in your formula. So measuring the difference in volume smoked / second clearly means you have to find the volume. Since you found velocity of burning, you can equate the amount of weed smoked with how fast the joint burned ONLY IF THE JOINTS ARE THE SAME THICKNESS. Otherwise it will OBVIOUSLY change. Since you found the velocity of the burn or how fast a joint will burn, but you already told us that a small, normal, and fat joint burn at the same rate, you did not actually tell us anything with the formula. and again, this is all common sense. but im tired and im not sure we're every gonna get through to each other. plus im going on vacation in the morning. so, peace.
So it seems you were confused, and you also thought volume was thickness so that could have messed you up as well. The only thing your not understanding well is that - The graph shows volume burned per second (if you change "distance in centimeters" to volume" [Prove to me that it doesn't] - The bigger amount of space you burn that has weed packed in it, the more weed/volume you burn *so if you use common sense to relate that to how much your inhaling, then you will know the more volume/weed you burn/inhale the higher you get [Is it not true that the bigger the hit the higher you get?] So with those 2 points proven, you can conclude that -the bigger the volume you burn/inhale in the least amount of time, the higher you get -and the smaller amount of volume you burn in the same amount of time will get you just as high and save more marijuana, that's the whole point I will update the graph soon.
I just read that shit so blazed that my keyboard keys are changing colors. But that formula gets me so stoked for the best reason. Now I can make tiny joints and conserve my weed. Being a math whiz that whole speech made sense to me. Oh my god I am so fucking high right now.
No I didnt... I never said anything anywhere near that. I said volume is dependent on thickness, which is obviously true. I shouldn't have to explain that. It doesn't show volume at all. You cannot use the velocity formula to find volume... Why the fuck would you think that? That is what I keep saying. How can you not understand that? Volume is in no way related to velocity. I literally showed you with step by step math why volume and velocity (which is what is shown on your graph) are not the same thing. If you realize that volume is cubic, how did you find it WITH 2 VARIABLES (distance and time)? I don't need to prove that for you, if you cant see that or didnt already know that, you must not have taken 7th grade math. Did you mean to make the graph show volume on one axis and time on the other? Because you did not come to that conclusion with math because you did not do the correct math to find that. And AGAIN. "Your" "formula" does not show anything about how high you get, so no, your formula does not show that volume makes you higher, even though that is obvious. Do you realize those two points can't both be true? Point 2: "the smaller amount of volume you burn in the same amount of time will get you just as high" if volume/time=highness. v=12 time=3 12/3=4 highness so... if v=9 and time stays same, time=3 9/3=3 highness 4>3 its mathematically (as well as practically, as in when you actually test it) impossible. And that the second point is clearly not true? The more weed you smoke in the same amount of time, the higher you will be. Period. There is no arguing that... Not to mention its completely obvious that the bigger hits (volume) you smoke the higher you get and that is in no way "extraordinary". No it doesnt. The formula shows a velocity. It shows NOTHING of how high you get nor the amount of smoke produced.
Your missing the point, that the only thing I'm saying is smaller joints conserve more MJ, and I was only calculating it for the people who wanted to know for sure. ONLY when using VOLUME like you said earlier the formula can also be applied to pipes and bongs as well. (because the formula is volume divided by time which we already agreed is the correct formula for calculating distance burned per minute) Maybe this updated chart will help explain things more.
Just to be clear again, saying that smoking more MJ at once has less duration and it is more intense, is coming from comparing it to stuff like adderall. Because with adderall if you snort it, the faster it hits you, the more intense it is, but it doesn't last as long. I think it's the same concept for MJ and I don't think you could prove otherwise, that's why I keep saying that. Edit: I also see what you mean about my formula only showing velocity. Yes you are right, the PERSONAL one I did (since I couldn't measure volume) actually did show velocity. But it still shows centimeters burned per second, because velocity is "the rate of speed with which something happens" Which is CBPS/Centimeters burned per second. Except you can also do Volume burned per second (which we both just proved), so yeah my mistake on that also. Just needed to clear that up. So there really is no argument here, except you don't think the more intense your high is in less time, the less duration it has? Except I just explained why I think that. And yeah it's nothing "extraordinary" like I thought when I was high, lol, but I don't think anyone has did anything like this [as in prove smaller joints/blunts conserve more weed], and if so, not many people know about it so I just wanted to share it. Oh yeah, you won't get as high as you would if you smoked a fat joint, UNLESS you smoke A FEW smaller joints FAST, because you would be smoking A LOT more than your BURNING, enabling you to consume more of the total marijuana smoke than you would if you were smoking a fat joint. < Which is my main argument. 2 skinny joints saves more mj and can get you just as high (if smoked fast enough) as one fat joint
Holy shit. If Anyone were to look at these arguments from a sober perspective, it'd be 100x funnier when stoned. Hahahahaha, this is amazing.
We did it. This makes sense and is exactly what I believed you were trying to say. Yes, I believe this is correct. I still think its pretty obvious once you've smoked a bong vs. a bowl or joint, but it would be truly VERY useful if you could combine this with drug testing to see how concentrated the THC metabolites they test for (ppm probably) and you could literally create a steadfast accurate formula for the ratios of how high you could get, although this would vary from person to person based on absorption. btw, you could calculate the volume on joints fairly easily as long as you could measure the diameter, so if you had a metric ruler with cm/mm it would be pretty easy using the math I provided. +rep
So glad I was able to show you what I meant . While I was creating the updated chart, I knew it would explain things perfectly lol, and I was just waiting to see your response to it today xD. And yeah, I already predicted that much more can be found from this, but I don't have the tools to do so, so this is just the basics. Since all of this CAN be discovered and I've broken down a basic formula/rule for the overall concept, that's why I claimed the "Smoking Efficiency Check" to be my idea. Although it's not only smoking that you can calculate it as, but to us stoners it's basically the only thing it's useful for so yeah... Btw, I was pretty high the whole time I first thought of the idea, so I wasn't thinking 100% clear but I knew what I was talking about, lol. And yeah I didn't have a ruler, i folded a dollar bill in half which is 3 inches, and it was the same length as the joint paper so I just did that. Thanks though dude, it CAN be VERY useful, and that's exactly all I wanted to show, if I had the equipment do figure out more, trust me I would, but maybe someone else can take this idea farther and figure out the more advanced part of it for me. [Like when the periodic table was invented, the russian scientist predicted the other elements and how you could find them, just as I'm predicting how far this basic formula can go and how much you can find out.