Long term storage question

[havanaclub]

Like many on this thread and forum I suggest 'trying' a dryer cigar. Yet on the other hand, if you don't have smoking problems and issues, why change?

I know this seems contradictory, but we are not the same. Furthermore, this site has slid (yes slid) back to mentioning rH without a corresponding temperature. EMC in a cigar is not based solely on rH but on rH and temperature. 70rH and 60F and 70rH and 80F yield different water content in your cigars.

I think with the consensus perhaps you have something to think about. You might think about trying something different, but a total shift to how you store really may not be in order.

I understand your house is dry... Okay great, an rH negative ambient is the established simplest means to store cigars, but without knowing the temperature, I could suggest settings that overly dry out your cigars and that would be bad.

Notice @stogieluver gave you his settings! Not setting!!! That is the proper way to address cigar EMC questions. The best thing that I could hope that you would get out of this thread is the understanding that temperature and rH are linked. One number without the other is useless!

Best of luck on your project. -Piggy

Piggy, do you mind explaining the effects of temperature on water content in the humidor and cigars?
Eg: the difference between 65rH 70F and 65rH and 63F
Thanks sir!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PigFish]

2 hours ago, havanaclub said:

 

Piggy, do you mind explaining the effects of temperature on water content in the humidor and cigars?
Eg: the difference between 65rH 70F and 65rH and 63F
Thanks sir!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I don't know that I can really take the time to explain it... But hopefully proving it will do!

There are a number of notes that should go with this answer. First, this is not my original material.

I am a great believer in research. In order to understand why my empirical experience began to contradict “traditional” thinking in cigar keeping, this includes what I used to believe about tobacco storage, I started to research tobacco adsorption and desorption characteristics. Ultimately, I found that what I was experiencing with the ability to control tobacco storage (the humidor) with some precision was in fact completely consistent to what (mass) tobacco producers have known for decades.

All this material is proven. Therefore this is not speculation on my part. One only needs one or two pieces for this puzzle to become clear. He/she either needs the ability to control the variables of temperature and rH with some precision, a precision scale, and the time to experiment for themselves, OR the ability to research the data from those who have the time and resources for same, and understand and believe their work. I have done both!

The fact is, the more that one understands the science of water activity, the more intuitive this will become. The study of water activity and food storage is a huge resource for information.

What is not often understood is that this material is not derived from a formula. The formula is derived from the empirical data and testing via a scientific method… All hygroscopic materials are different, yet most of them, with the obvious exception of aqueous salts act pretty much the same.

Without spending a lot of time on the rhetoric lets just drop the proof!

What you see here is a chart from a research paper that I found some number of years ago when researching this topic. I was specifically looking for data to prove what I had found empirically, and that was when I stored cigars at lower temperature, with a fixed rH, cigars actually got heavier and acquired more water.

The paper itself, from my recollection is some 50 to 60 years old. I took this chart from that paper. I likely have the original paper somewhere but finding it has proven to be quiet a task. One therefore can only reference the work I have done on the chart.

I took the scanned image of the chart and took it over to CAD to scale some of the data for extrapolation. This image therefore is my work. Since this is a logarithmic scaled chart (and I don’t have the matrix of original data points) this is the best that I can do with the data.

The point is, you will notice that isosteric lines (the Temperature lines) [corrected] are separated by a distance. This is proof that as the temperature changes so does the isothermal adsorption of water in tobacco. This is the proof…

There is something further, not really shown on the chart. Remember the chart is logarithmic. This means that the EMC data is compressed as we move up the Y line. This means that the effect actually gets more pronounced, the higher we move up Y axis of the chart. We therefore can assume that we tend to ‘freeze’ or lets say, largely immobilize gaseous water in a hygroscopic substance, as the temperature gets lower.

You can prove this to yourself with the right equipment, the ability to store cigars in a stable state for a long period of time, and a lot of time to chart the cigars you are testing.

This all has to do with the energy of water and the valence bonds that it makes with a host (hygroscopic) material. We all understand freezing water to itself is a matter of reducing its energy. There is no real difference in freezing water to a hygroscopic substance. As water bonds to itself, it bonds to hygroscopic materials. If you understand the three states of water, solid, liquid and gas, all based on the energy of water (temperature), you can understand that the higher the energy (temperature) of water, the harder is it to bond it to tobacco or itself.

I hope this answers your question.

Cheers! -Piggy

[havanaclub]

I don't know that I can really take the time to explain it... But hopefully proving it will do!

There are a number of notes that should go with this answer. First, this is not my original material.

I am a great believer in research. In order to understand why my empirical experience began to contradict “traditional” thinking in cigar keeping, this includes what I used to believe about tobacco storage, I started to research tobacco adsorption and desorption characteristics. Ultimately, I found that what I was experiencing with the ability to control tobacco storage (the humidor) with some precision was in fact completely consistent to what (mass) tobacco producers have known for decades.

All this material is proven. Therefore this is not speculation on my part. One only needs one or two pieces for this puzzle to become clear. He/she either needs the ability to control the variables of temperature and rH with some precision, a precision scale, and the time to experiment for themselves, OR the ability to research the data from those who have the time and resources for same, and understand and believe their work. I have done both!

The fact is, the more that one understands the science of water activity, the more intuitive this will become. The study of water activity and food storage is a huge resource for information.

What is not often understood is that this material is not derived from a formula. The formula is derived from the empirical data and testing via a scientific method… All hygroscopic materials are different, yet most of them, with the obvious exception of aqueous salts act pretty much the same.

Without spending a lot of time on the rhetoric lets just drop the proof!



What you see here is a chart from a research paper that I found some number of years ago when researching this topic. I was specifically looking for data to prove what I had found empirically, and that was when I stored cigars at lower temperature, with a fixed rH, cigars actually got heavier and acquired more water.

The paper itself, from my recollection is some 50 to 60 years old. I took this chart from that paper. I likely have the original paper somewhere but finding it has proven to be quiet a task. One therefore can only reference the work I have done on the chart.

I took the scanned image of the chart and took it over to CAD to scale some of the data for extrapolation. This image therefore is my work. Since this is a logarithmic scaled chart (and I don’t have the matrix of original data points) this is the best that I can do with the data.

The point is, you will notice that isosteric lines (the rH lines) are separated by a distance. This is proof that as the temperature changes so does the isothermal adsorption of water in tobacco. This is the proof…

There is something further, not really shown on the chart. Remember the chart is logarithmic. This means that the EMC data is compressed as we move up the Y line. This means that the effect actually gets more pronounced, the higher we move up Y axis of the chart. We therefore can assume that we tend to ‘freeze’ or lets say, largely immobilize gaseous water in a hygroscopic substance, as the temperature gets lower.

You can prove this to yourself with the right equipment, the ability to store cigars in a stable state for a long period of time, and a lot of time to chart the cigars you are testing.

This all has to do with the energy of water and the valence bonds that it makes with a host (hygroscopic) material. We all understand freezing water to itself is a matter of reducing its energy. There is no real difference in freezing water to a hygroscopic substance. As water bonds to itself, it bonds to hygroscopic materials. If you understand the three states of water, solid, liquid and gas, all based on the energy of water (temperature), you can understand that the higher the energy (temperature) of water, the harder is it to bond it to tobacco or itself.

I hope this answers your question.

Cheers! -Piggy

Thanks Piggy!
So 65rh at 70F would produce drier cigars than 65rh at 63F?
What do you keep yours at? I read somewhere you like them dry low 60s like 61-62 I think


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PigFish]

You are certainly welcome!

Yes, higher temp, same rH, lower EMC.

I store at 70F and 60 to 61rH depending on the humidor. I actually believe that low temperatures are constructively bad for cigar storage in a typical humidor. I won't go into that now, but that is one of my beliefs...

Remember, there really is no perfect controlled humidor. My ideas, based around some understanding of hysteresis is that low amplitude, high frequency cycles are not noticeable to tobacco and the net result is in essence a 'stable' humidor.

Cheers! -the Pig

[earthson]

After 10 years of leaving them loose, I've found aging in boxes works much, much better.

Also, I do LT aging at 68-70% while my smokables are 58-62%. Works for me.

[Colt45]

22 hours ago, Fuzz said:

My humidor is set at 62.

just like your height in inches!

[PigFish]

1 hour ago, Colt45 said:

just like your height in inches!

... dude! That's low! (pun intended)!

-tP

[Cep]

On 5/19/2017 at 5:28 PM, earthson said:

After 10 years of leaving them loose, I've found aging in boxes works much, much better.

Also, I do LT aging at 68-70% while my smokables are 58-62%. Works for me.

But how did you decide to do LT aging at higher humidity levels?

Have you compared LT aging results between 68-70 and 58-62?

 

[earthson]

1 hour ago, Cep said:

But how did you decide to do LT aging at higher humidity levels?

Have you compared LT aging results between 68-70 and 58-62?

 

Honestly, I got the idea from the little insert that comes in each box of habanos, which recommends aging at such an RH.  I have become accustomed to aging working well at these levels, so I likely won't be trusting my prized boxes to some lower RH - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  I initially aged at my preferred smoking RH and found the smokes seemed to die out sometimes, especially if I was buying aged stock.

These days, I keep a fat cooler stocked and it's almost always 67-68%.  When boxes become ready, I will pull out 2-5 sticks at a time and put them in a desktop.  They seem to take 30 days to even out, and then I smoke off of them until it's time to replenish.