Results 1 to 10 of 41
Hybrid View
-
03-20-2005, 12:13 PM #1OPSenior Member
The G-Bong and an efficiency breakdown
Originally Posted by hoodedclum
Yeah, you can pack just what you are going to hit, and that makes it better; but what I am talking about is a point of limiting returns. There is a size limit at which your lungs cannot absorb any more smoke in one hit (unless you are capable of holding your breath for minutes on end). The amount of smoke that goes into your lungs from a super dense g-bong hit can not be fully absorbed- they get all they can, but then too much is left over for exhale. It's overkill, and the price is unnecessary loss of weed.
In terms of what you can get out of one hit, or even in terms of time (unless you count setup), the g-bong wins of course- from what else can you get such a powerful hit? But as I pointed out, my operational definition of efficiency was to minimize mass of weed smoked. I don't think the gb does so well in that regard.
(thanks for bringin back Jack)2600 Reviewed by 2600 on . The G-Bong and an efficiency breakdown A recent thread reminded me of the few times I have resorted to the gravity bong in the past. Usually it was when I had been smoking too way too much and had a ridiculously high tolerance, so that was the only way I was really going to get high. So if you've been there, you also know that after you hit one, you are done for the day (in terms of just being able to hit a normal piece, or roll a j and expect to get anything from it after hitting a gravity). Now if you guys do g'bongs the Rating: 5Don\'t mess with Texas.
Advertisements
Similar Threads
-
Procyon Breakdown
By Chemteach7 in forum Closet / Cabinet GrowingReplies: 13Last Post: 01-01-2010, 12:12 AM -
Efficiency of a waterfall?
By The Lemon in forum Marijuana MethodsReplies: 9Last Post: 08-02-2007, 08:26 PM -
MySpace Breakdown
By UnViaje in forum GreenGrassForums LoungeReplies: 12Last Post: 04-25-2006, 06:34 PM -
skunk breakdown
By BizzleLuvin in forum GreenGrassForums LoungeReplies: 6Last Post: 01-20-2006, 06:35 PM